Fantasy Football Newb Query

August 22, 2008 9:23 AM

Why are so many RBs ranked above QBs who scored more fantasy points?

I'm new to FF and working on my draft strategy, and I'm wondering why so many sites rank several RBs above Brady, Romo, and Manning, when those three look to have scored a lot more fantasy points last year.

For instance, using Yahoo default scoring for 2007, those three QBs had 444, 328, and 304 points respectively. LaDainian Tomlinson had 295 points, but his is somehow ranked #2 overall for 2007, and is the projected #1 for 2008.

On Yahoo, the "Actual" ranking does not match the scored points, and on a lot of sites projected rankings do not correlate with projected points.

Or so it seems to me. What am I missing?

posted by blapst to sports, hobbies, & recreation (9 comments total)

Availability. Most any league needs two starting RBs, and with the very limited selection of true #1 workhorse RBs out there, you need to get them early. Almost every back splits carries now.

Strategies are changing though, and if you have a 2 QB or 3/4 WR league their value changes. You also have to pay attention to your league scoring. If the league punishes for INTS and is light on points for passing yards (say 50yds per point as opposed to 25yds) QB value drops further.
posted by WinnipegDragon at 9:36 AM on August 22, 2008

Running backs see the biggest drop off in production from a 'top pick' to a second rounder.

As an example, ESPN projects 13 quarterbacks to score 200 fantasy points or more. (With two more QB's at 195 and 199)-so let's call that 15. But ESPN projects only 9 RB's to score 200 fantasy points or more.

As I understand it though, this is changing a bit. Last year wasn't a really great year for running backs, as they got (almost league-wide) fewer touches than usual. So in a lot of places, people are going RB-QB, where the trend used to be RB-RB.

I got Brian Westbrook. I'm stoked.
posted by HighTechUnderpants at 10:15 AM on August 22, 2008

You need to realize that in a draft, the choice you make in the first round dramatically impacts the choices you get to make in the next few rounds. There's only one RB like LT2; there are several QBs close to the top QBs. (Assuming Brady doesn't throw another 50TDs; several ranking sites I've seen do have him in the top 2-3 overall)

You just need to consider the possible combinations:

QB#1-3 and RB#12-15
vs.
QB#5-6 and RB#1-7

I don't feel like actually crunching numbers that are variable across leagues, but for the vast majority of recent fantasy football, option 2 is the better bet. The point differential between Romo and Roethlisberger may be daunting, but option 2 *usually* makes up for it with a stronger RB1 pick.

But for this year, and depending on your league's scoring, the RB-heavy approach may be less helpful than it has in the past. There are less true #1 RBs, even from last year. There is more of an emphasis on the passing offense in the NFL as a whole, elevating QBs and WRs.

In general, the best advice I have seen is to choose the best player available, rather than focus on RBs. Past strategies were pretty dogmatic on that, and rankings still contain some of that bias.
posted by joemax at 10:18 AM on August 22, 2008

Because it's more about the differences in points between players of different rounds than the amount of points.

Here is an exaggerated example: Imagine if every quarterback in the league scored 1,000 points, then why would you want to pick him in the first round when you could pick him in the last round and get the same amount of points?
posted by albolin at 12:45 PM on August 22, 2008

Fantasy football is not like fantasy baseball, where there is a long season and performance is aggregated over a huge stretch of time. Instead, fantasy football has weekly wins and losses, and players in fantasy football have only 16 chances to score for you.

Therefore, a player's season totals, his final score, is somewhat deceptive and less important than week-to-week performances. A guy that has 10 great weekly performances and six zeroes might be a better option than a guy with 16 average games. The former is likely to net you 10 victories. The latter might net you 16 losses. On the other hand, a guy with 15 zeroes and one monster performance on the last day of the season is nearly worthless to you, but he will have a deceptive final number that makes him look better than he really is. Say hello to Drew Bennett, who had eight touchdowns over the final three games of the 2004 season, largely because of an injury that put Billy Volek behind center, who would throw to him. Anyone who chose Drew Bennett at the start of the next season got screwed, because he wasn't ever a real factor in that offense. Plus, he got injured, but you get the point.

Therefore, you have to factor the weekly victories aspect into things, and also factor relative risk into the equations.

Top running backs are top running backs because they have running-oriented teams and running-oriented offensive lines that allow them to succeed week in and week out. Top quarterbacks are top quarterbacks because they throw touchdowns. Quarterbacks also get injured more often. When a team with a top quarterback has an injured quarterback on their hands, they either adjust their strategy by going to the run more often (e.g. they stop throwing touchdowns), or replacing him outright.

Therefore, top running backs are likely to be more consistent for you, whereas a top quarterback is perceived as a higher risk.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:21 PM on August 22, 2008

Let's look at last year for some insight. In one of my leagues, the order in which QBs were drafted and their resulting scoring was like this:

Round1 P. Manning 327pts (3rd)
Round2 C. Palmer 265pts (9th)
Round3 D. Brees 304pts (5th)
Round3 T. Brady 428pts (1st)
Round4 M. Bulger 139pts (23rd)
Round4 T. Romo 357pts (2nd)
Round4 D. McNabb 238pts (13th)
Round4 J. Kitna 248pts (10th)
Round4 V. Young 194pts (18th)
Round4 M. Hasselbeck 196pts (7th)

The fourth best QB was Ben Roethlisberger who wasn't drafted until the 6th rounds (in a 14 team league). More importantly, after the top three guys, the next five guys are with 3% of each other in points scored. The difference between the fourth guy and the tenth guy is only 20%. All but the top two guys were still available by round three.

If you choose to take a top QB in the first two rounds, you will find that the quality at RB has dropped precipitously. In our 14 team league, 20 RBs were taken in the first two rounds. If you waited until round three to get your second RB, you were likely taking a huge drop in points.

There is also the scarcity factor. Most fantasy rules requires you to have one QB and two RBs. Looking at the NFL, every team has one QB who is certain to get all the points at his position for his team. Even in a 14 team fantasy league, everyone has at least one guy who is the clear-cut star at his position. At RB, each guy needs at least two RBs and many NFL teams have a rotating platoon of guys, maybe a goalline guy, a third down guy and a main guy. A team like Denver last year had effectively no good RBs in fantasy rules. One guy ended up 34th under our scoring rules and the other guy 44th. There are really only 10 or 12 workhouse RBs who are going to get all the points for their team and if you don't have one of them, you are toast. If you have two of them, you will likely win the league with a substandard QB. Its just supply and demand. You need twice as many RBs and there aren't twice as many good ones. There may not even be as many.
posted by Lame_username at 2:01 PM on August 22, 2008

Running backs have (in theory) the most ways to score (rushing and receiving). WRs can run a reverse and a QB can scramble for a TD, but top RBs will always be the ones to score big, especially if your league combines receiving yards and rushing yards.
posted by Twicketface at 2:40 PM on August 22, 2008

these answers are very helpful in the general approach to the draft, so thank everyone very much.

but i am still a little puzzled as to how one player can end up ranked higher than another who has more points. here i'm talking not about using last year's stats to help predict next year's performance, but about how even in the rankings for end-of-season 2007, some players with lower numbers end up ranked higher.
posted by blapst at 3:24 PM on August 25, 2008

The statistical principle used here is called the "X-Factor" by FFL players, and more frequently referred to by baseball stat wonks as "VORP", which stands for Value Over Replacement Player.

It's not about the total amount of points scored, or everyone would be drafting kickers first. It's about the amount of points that a player can get over and above an average player on the scrap heap.

If you draft a QB first, and your opponent drafts a running back first, and you draft a RB second, while your opponent drafts a QB second, it'll look something like this (numbers approximated/made up):

YOU: 1st-tier QB (320) + 2nd-tier RB (90) = 410
THEM: 1st-tier RB (175) + 2nd-tier QB (280) = 455

That's why the math works, more-or-less. Now, if Tom Brady can repeat his absurd 400+ point season, that may change things a little. But, for a recent example, Peyton Manning came back down to Earth last year, after an astronomical scoring season two years ago. His score was good last season, but within what you'd predict from a "good" QB. His big season was a statistical anomaly, and I think that a lot of players are viewing Tom Brady the same way.
posted by Citrus at 8:06 AM on August 27, 2008 [1 favorite]