We're all sleeping on Michael Pittman

[straightcashhomie831]

But kudos to you guys for liking Pittman. I wish I had somebody in any of my leagues who was willing to take him over Lamb/Jeudy/Jefferson/Reagor. Alas.

We can probably do without the passive-aggressive backhanded jabs. I don't think anyone said they would literally take Pittman over Lamb/Jeudy. I'm not blind to value and I would trade down to obtain value and then draft Pittman. I actually traded the 1.05 for a late 1st and a mid-2nd. The guy I traded took Jeudy and I took Chase Young and Pittman. Highway robbery if you ask me. Although I would absolutely take Pittman 100 times out of 100 over Reagor. I do like Jefferson though, as I'm a Viking fan, but I do think Pittman has a higher ceiling.

Over Reagor? you gone learn!

[AkaliWarrior]

Lol. Once Reagor learns to catch we can talk. Hehe

[OhCruelestRanter]

Although I would absolutely take Pittman 100 times out of 100 over Reagor.

Lol. Once Reagor learns to catch we can talk. Hehe

Prospects like Reagor succeed at a significantly higher rate than guys like Pittman.

I have no idea how valuable Chase Young is in an IDP dynasty league (based on my limited experience, I think IDP is much better suited for seasonal leagues than it is for dynasty, but that's a whole other conversation) but trading down instead of taking Jeudy seems like a good move; I probably just would have taken somebody like Reagor/Jefferson/Higgins if they were there, or traded down again and taken Shenault or Mims.

[PR0v3]

Does breakout age or dominator rating actually have any statistically significant predictive value, or is it more of a “flipped heads 8/10 times, so heads is 80% odds to hit” type of thing? Serious question.

[Mike from Canada]

Does breakout age or dominator rating actually have any statistically significant predictive value, or is it more of a “flipped heads 8/10 times, so heads is 80% odds to hit” type of thing? Serious question.

Great question and I'm interested as well. I think in a previous thread I saw evidence that it does offer some predictive value but hopefully someone can add more than I can.

[ericanadian]

Does breakout age or dominator rating actually have any statistically significant predictive value, or is it more of a “flipped heads 8/10 times, so heads is 80% odds to hit” type of thing? Serious question.

Great question and I'm interested as well. I think in a previous thread I saw evidence that it does offer some predictive value but hopefully someone can add more than I can.

Here is a good walkthrough.

https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/20 ... tor-rating

[PR0v3]

Does breakout age or dominator rating actually have any statistically significant predictive value, or is it more of a “flipped heads 8/10 times, so heads is 80% odds to hit” type of thing? Serious question.

Great question and I'm interested as well. I think in a previous thread I saw evidence that it does offer some predictive value but hopefully someone can add more than I can.

Here is a good walkthrough.

https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/20 ... tor-rating

Here’s my take away from reading that article:

The person took breakout age hit rates and then used those hit rates to give a % chance that Bryan Edwards or Tyler Johnson hit.

That’s not how stats work.

Is this really all that people are doing? Just counting 10 coin flips and taking whatever the results are to guess the next coin flip? Why are people placing so much value on this stuff?

[Ice]

There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

That said, elite talent does tend to show itself early. It is a stat worth looking at to confirm an evaluation but weighed against film study and actual draft capital by the pros it will ultimately fall short IMO.

There are always anomalies but relying on a stat with a lot of variables probably isn't the best approach.

As far as Pittman; no one is sleeping on him. He was the 8th WR drafted and has some separation issue concerns at the next level. Looks like a solid possession WR with red zone upside that went to a team he will most likely be the 3rd or 4th option for the foreseeable future.

I wouldn't take him in round 1 but no issues with anyone that does. He does have 3rd year breakout potential IMO.

[OhCruelestRanter]

Great question and I'm interested as well. I think in a previous thread I saw evidence that it does offer some predictive value but hopefully someone can add more than I can.

Here is a good walkthrough.

https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/20 ... tor-rating

Here’s my take away from reading that article:

The person took breakout age hit rates and then used those hit rates to give a % chance that Bryan Edwards or Tyler Johnson hit.

That’s not how stats work.

Is this really all that people are doing? Just counting 10 coin flips and taking whatever the results are to guess the next coin flip? Why are people placing so much value on this stuff?

That’s... not what people are doing. Maybe you should read the article again if your characterization is “taking 10 flips and taking whatever the results are”. That feels like a deliberate mischaracterization. If you want to use an inappropriately simple analogy, it’s more like “rolling set of dice over 350 times and figuring out that 7s are more common than 3s”. Looking at 350+ players over fifteen years, and finding that guys who breakout early in college are more likely to be successful is a lot more meaningful than I think you’re implying.

Fantasy football prospect evaluation is complicated. Using any one data point as a sole source of player evaluation is asking for trouble. For WRs, this is our second most predictive single metric after draft capital. Using the things that we know have both significant correlation and plausible causation- draft capital, breakout age, market share, avoiding seniors- you can get a good look at a player’s analytical profile. Nobody is perfect (ok, except DJ Moore!) but you can start to see who shares more traits with successful players and who doesn’t. On top of that, because these facets are objective, you can also examine them and look at each case and who these markers missed- for example guys who played with other NFL WRs have had artificially depressed market shares, several of the successful senior WRs came from small schools, etc.

This is a fundamentally more reliable way to evaluate players than using things that barely/don’t correlate, like 40 times*, 3 cone drills, personal YouTube highlight scouting, etc. Most importantly, what you learn from doing this stuff is that the chances of these guys breaking out aren’t as different as we’d like to think, and frequently the answer is to just trade back and get more picks, and then use the late round picks to supplement your rosters with undervalued veterans.

Back to Pittman- he’s a late breakout from a big school, and he entered the draft as a senior. He’s also an early 2nd round prospect who drew a healthy chunk of USC’s passing game work despite playing with a future NFL player in St. Brown. There’s good and bad to his profile. I have him outside the tier of 1st rounder juniors with early breakouts- Lamb, Jeudy, Reagor, and Jefferson- and in the next tier of flawed WRs with things to like: Ruggs and Aiyuk (1st rounders), Higgins and Shenault (early breakout, left early, 2nd rounders), and Mims(early breakout, 2nd rounder, great market share). I’m happy to take him, but people seem more happy to give me Shenault, Mims, and Aiyuk along with something else in order to get him, so that’s what I’ve done so far.

[PR0v3]

Here is a good walkthrough.

https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/20 ... tor-rating

Here’s my take away from reading that article:

The person took breakout age hit rates and then used those hit rates to give a % chance that Bryan Edwards or Tyler Johnson hit.

That’s not how stats work.

Is this really all that people are doing? Just counting 10 coin flips and taking whatever the results are to guess the next coin flip? Why are people placing so much value on this stuff?

That’s... not what people are doing. Maybe you should read the article again if your characterization is “taking 10 flips and taking whatever the results are”. That feels like a deliberate mischaracterization. If you want to use an inappropriately simple analogy, it’s more like “rolling set of dice over 350 times and figuring out that 7s are more common than 3s”. Looking at 350+ players over fifteen years, and finding that guys who breakout early in college are more likely to be successful is a lot more meaningful than I think you’re implying.

Fantasy football prospect evaluation is complicated. Using any one data point as a sole source of player evaluation is asking for trouble. For WRs, this is our second most predictive single metric after draft capital. Using the things that we know have both significant correlation and plausible causation- draft capital, breakout age, market share, avoiding seniors- you can get a good look at a player’s analytical profile. Nobody is perfect (ok, except DJ Moore!) but you can start to see who shares more traits with successful players and who doesn’t. On top of that, because these facets are objective, you can also examine them and look at each case and who these markers missed- for example guys who played with other NFL WRs have had artificially depressed market shares, several of the successful senior WRs came from small schools, etc.

This is a fundamentally more reliable way to evaluate players than using things that barely/don’t correlate, like 40 times*, 3 cone drills, personal YouTube highlight scouting, etc. Most importantly, what you learn from doing this stuff is that the chances of these guys breaking out aren’t as different as we’d like to think, and frequently the answer is to just trade back and get more picks, and then use the late round picks to supplement your rosters with undervalued veterans.

Back to Pittman- he’s a late breakout from a big school, and he entered the draft as a senior. He’s also an early 2nd round prospect who drew a healthy chunk of USC’s passing game work despite playing with a future NFL player in St. Brown. There’s good and bad to his profile. I have him outside the tier of 1st rounder juniors with early breakouts- Lamb, Jeudy, Reagor, and Jefferson- and in the next tier of flawed WRs with things to like: Ruggs and Aiyuk (1st rounders), Higgins and Shenault (early breakout, left early, 2nd rounders), and Mims(early breakout, 2nd rounder, great market share). I’m happy to take him, but people seem more happy to give me Shenault, Mims, and Aiyuk along with something else in order to get him, so that’s what I’ve done so far.

Where is the proof the metric is predictive? This is what I am asking. If we are just “rolling set of dice over 350 times and figuring out that 7s are more common than 3s,” the question we need to be asking is, why? In this situation, we can prove the answer with math. The math is what is predictive, not the test results.

Where is the proof that breakout age is predictive? If there is none, what exactly is the number telling us? Nothing really. The reasons for why the number is what it is is what is predictive.

[Sriracha]

Where is the proof the metric is predictive? This is what I am asking. If we are just “rolling set of dice over 350 times and figuring out that 7s are more common than 3s,” the question we need to be asking is, why? In this situation, we can prove the answer with math. The math is what is predictive, not the test results.

Where is the proof that breakout age is predictive? If there is none, what exactly is the number telling us? Nothing really. The reasons for why the number is what it is is what is predictive.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here; but given your logic, wouldn't correlations be meaningless? 350 is a fairly large sample size which means that it's extremely unlikely these results are simply random chance. If you want to prove causation that's not going to happen in something as complicated as football.

[Jigga94]

https://dynastyleaguefootball.com/2019/ ... aft-round/

Just gonna leave that here. Usually the better the BA and better the draft capital, the higher likelihood of success. Coincidentally, 2nd Rd picks with a 20 BA hit greater than 2nd Rd WR with 19 BA lol

[StripesOfKC]

https://dynastyleaguefootball.com/2019/ ... aft-round/

Just gonna leave that here

Actually 20 year old breakouts picked in the 2nd round seem to do pretty well.

Not sure that's what you were trying to prove though

21 is where the real drop off begins

[OhCruelestRanter]

Where is the proof the metric is predictive? This is what I am asking. If we are just “rolling set of dice over 350 times and figuring out that 7s are more common than 3s,” the question we need to be asking is, why? In this situation, we can prove the answer with math. The math is what is predictive, not the test results.

Where is the proof that breakout age is predictive? If there is none, what exactly is the number telling us? Nothing really. The reasons for why the number is what it is is what is predictive.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here; but given your logic, wouldn't correlations be meaningless? 350 is a fairly large sample size which means that it's extremely unlikely these results are simply random chance. If you want to prove causation that's not going to happen in something as complicated as football.

That's exactly how I took it too. He's trying to invalidate this whole form of analysis- a retrospective cohort study, where you look back a group of players who have the variable in question (early breakout age) and those who don't, and then see which ones develop the condition in question (fantasy success). Again, this is a robust amount of data (15+ years, 350+ players) with a plausible explanation (better players play well at a young age, before they're just older than their college competition).

I don't know what to say. I suspect that he just has a fundamental misunderstanding about how this type of research/analysis is done. If this type of analysis isn't up to your standard, then nothing in fantasy football ever will be- including draft capital, and you might as well just abandon analytical thinking as a concept.

[OhCruelestRanter]

https://dynastyleaguefootball.com/2019/ ... aft-round/

Just gonna leave that here

Actually 20 year old breakouts picked in the 2nd round seem to do pretty well.

Not sure that's what you were trying to prove though

21 is where the real drop off begins

I would be a little bit cautious about making conclusions based on specific boxes in that chart, as for a lot of them, you're narrowing the sample size. I don't think anybody thinks 22 year old breakout first round picks are going to hit 100% of the time based on a sample-size of 1. The important takeaway is that early breakouts are good and predictive, and early draft capital is good and predicitve. I'd advise you to try to grab guys who have both, then once they're gone, try to grab guys who have at least one of those features, and consider taking a player at a different position before you draft somebody with neither.