Dynasty League Football Forum

PR0v3 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:40 pm

jjleurquin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:31 pm

PR0v3 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:35 pm No, it’s not the same perspective. Casino games are built on odds. The slot machines have built in odds to the games. For example, for every $1.00 put into the slot machine, it is programmed to give back $.98. This is written in code, it is predictable, it is the odds. Over time, this is what will happen. There may be some jackpots hit every now and then that cost the casino money on that pull, but with a large enough sample size they will make $.02 on every play. The odds are in the casino’s favor. Over time you cannot win.

What people are doing with fantasy football “analytics” and “models” is different. We do not know the odds of the game, we only know the results of the past slot machine pulls. If I play the slot machine, feed it $100 and hit a million dollar jackpot, I made a losing play. My EV on a $100 pull is $98. What the analytic crowd is doing is taking the $1M jackpot, comparing it to the $100 pull, and saying that when I go to the casino next door and play a completely different slot machine that my odds of winning $1M is 100%, since, you know, it just hit that way last time I pulled a slot. That is not how it works.

I'm not talking about the damn slot machines. I'm talking about the oddsmakers that decide what the lines are going to be every sunday. While their model is not perfect they will always come out ahead by using historical data to determine the odds and they'll move the line to even out the bets to get their 10% commission. Is it possible to beat them in the long run? Yes. but it's not likely.

I’m not really sure what your point is then and how it relates to my original post?

CGW wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:07 am I love this data and appreciate the work that went into it.

That said, I am curious if anyone has a practical use for it outside of validation that stud rookies usually continue being studs for a few years.

Sriracha wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:47 am

CGW wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:07 am I love this data and appreciate the work that went into it.

That said, I am curious if anyone has a practical use for it outside of validation that stud rookies usually continue being studs for a few years.

I believe it's trying to elaborate on what constitutes as a "stud" rookie.

Obviously productive rookie WRs are going to be hot commodities after their initial season but this data points at markers that would lead you to believe that even if a player like AJB has "spiked" in value he's still on his way up; helping to illuminate buying opportunities.

CGW wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:56 am

Sriracha wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:47 am

CGW wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 6:07 am I love this data and appreciate the work that went into it.

That said, I am curious if anyone has a practical use for it outside of validation that stud rookies usually continue being studs for a few years.

I believe it's trying to elaborate on what constitutes as a "stud" rookie.

Obviously productive rookie WRs are going to be hot commodities after their initial season but this data points at markers that would lead you to believe that even if a player like AJB has "spiked" in value he's still on his way up; helping to illuminate buying opportunities.

Makes sense. The only way I could think to use it was to buy low on players who trend towards the final result but have setbacks like injuries or situation change (Lamb).

Unfortunately, lamb and JJ seem untouchable already in my leagues.

Dynasty DeLorean wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:45 pm Update for week 8;

90%----(67+ Rookie Reception Yards per Game)
Jefferson [80]

47%----(57-66 Rookie Reception Yards per Game)
Lamb [66]
Higgins [61]

28%----(47-56 Rookie Reception Yards per Game)
Claypool [54]
Aiyuk [53]
Jeudy [51]

--------------------

5-10%
Shenault [46]
Ruggs [44]
Mims [42]
Mooney [38]
Reagor [37]
Edwards [33]
G. Davis [26]
M. Callaway [25]
Cephus [24]
Hamler [23]
Hightower [21]
Pittman [20]

-Mooney and Shenault are both tracking for enough receptions to vault them ahead of the 5-10% group. Mooney looks like a strong buy right now.
-Pittman is starting to get a bit concerning
-Mims, Reagor, Edwards all have small sample sizes so they can easily boost their numbers up with a few big weeks

I also crunched the numbers on receivers who miss most of their rookie season and it's not good. Of rookie receivers who played in 8 games or less [1995-2015], there were only about 5 hits total (or ~1%). Fulgham fits into that category and previous late round or UDFA hits since 1995 were Donald Driver and Victor Cruz, so maybe we're due? Just something to think about I guess.

Also guys, this weekly update is just for a bit of fun. The numbers at seasons end are what they are. Lamb was in the top group, his situation changed and now he's not. It's just the reality that many rookie wr's deal with. There's a reason a rookie wr only hits 1k yards once every approximately 2 years and it's not always because of lack of talent.

Patsfan86 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:18 pm I think this WR class is gonna mess with this model a bit, thats all im gonna say. I see some of the names on that bottom tier and while many of them wont get to 1000 yards this year merely due to the fact they were injured i do think they have very productive careers, Reagor, mims and Shenault stick out as guys who I think are going to do that.

Patsfan86 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:18 pm I think this WR class is gonna mess with this model a bit, thats all im gonna say. I see some of the names on that bottom tier and while many of them wont get to 1000 yards this year merely due to the fact they were injured i do think they have very productive careers, Reagor, mims and Shenault stick out as guys who I think are going to do that.

Patsfan86 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:18 pm I think this WR class is gonna mess with this model a bit, thats all im gonna say. I see some of the names on that bottom tier and while many of them wont get to 1000 yards this year merely due to the fact they were injured i do think they have very productive careers, Reagor, mims and Shenault stick out as guys who I think are going to do that.

Dynasty DeLorean wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:53 pm

Patsfan86 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:18 pm I think this WR class is gonna mess with this model a bit, thats all im gonna say. I see some of the names on that bottom tier and while many of them wont get to 1000 yards this year merely due to the fact they were injured i do think they have very productive careers, Reagor, mims and Shenault stick out as guys who I think are going to do that.

I guess I should add every week that the 47+ group still had 75% of players that were good, they just weren’t “studs”. It’s in no way saying only 28% will be good and the rest will be bad. The percentages do fall off precipitously below 47 though, unless they amass enough receptions as shenault and Mooney are on pace for

And like someone else said, 1k yards is a very rare thing and not at all what you should be expecting for any rookie. That’s the entire point about when rookies do manage it it seems to be something quite special.

Dynasty DeLorean wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:45 pm

I also crunched the numbers on receivers who miss most of their rookie season and it's not good. Of rookie receivers who played in 8 games or less [1995-2015], there were only about 5 hits total (or ~1%). Fulgham fits into that category and previous late round or UDFA hits since 1995 were Donald Driver and Victor Cruz, so maybe we're due? Just something to think about I guess.

ThunderTung wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 11:54 pm

Dynasty DeLorean wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:45 pm

I also crunched the numbers on receivers who miss most of their rookie season and it's not good. Of rookie receivers who played in 8 games or less [1995-2015], there were only about 5 hits total (or ~1%). Fulgham fits into that category and previous late round or UDFA hits since 1995 were Donald Driver and Victor Cruz, so maybe we're due? Just something to think about I guess.

oh god I hope so. I needed some Campbell reassurance. Although I cant imagine that hit count gets higher when a player misses his first 2 years lol. A man can dream I suppose

Dynasty DeLorean wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:31 am
From 1995-2015, 465 rookie wr's played in 8 games or less. Only 5 of them, or roughly 1%, went on to find success. So the hit rate is abysmal. The big jump to me appears to happen with rookies with 9+ games played. 8 or less and you only have 1 hit per group, 9 or more is where you start getting multiple hits per group and a higher hit rate as well.


8 or less games played;

Studs
Vincent Jackson – 8 games (2nd round pick) (59 yards year 1)(453 yards year 2)
Amani Toomer – 7 games (2nd round pick) (12 yards year 1)(263 yards year 2)
Donald Driver – 6 games (7th round pick) (31 yards year 1)(322 yards year 2)
Santana Moss – 5 games (1st round pick) (40 yards year 1)(433 yards year 2)

Good
Victor Cruz – 3 games (UDFA) (0 yards year 1) (1536 yards year 2)


If you adjust for looking at players with 8 or less games played and top 2 round draft pedigree, you find 23 results, and the percentages jump up from 1% to 13%. It's not much but it's something.

As for the rest of the players on the list, many busted after just 1 year. Some plodded a long for a few years of 200-300 yards production. Others like Ike Hilliard had O-K careers. And the ones I listed above became studs.

Looking at the "high profile" names on the 8 or less list since 2015, we have;
Travis Fulgham
Allen Lazard
Preston Williams
Parris Campbell
Josh Doctson
John Ross
N'Keal Harry
Kevin White
Dede Westbrook
Keke Coutee
Jalen Guyton
Auden Tate

Oddly enough, Preston Williams has the most rookie receiving yardage of anyone on the 8 or less list from 1995-2019