Friday, February 24, 2017

Extra Treat Figures Team Efficiency 2016. Guess Where the Patriots and Flacons were?

Sometimes my figures get so pretty that I got to share with the world.

Love Love my Team Efficiency Figure based on my Data going into my Textbook!

Enjoy



Thursday, February 23, 2017

2013 to 2016 Seasonal Averages of Player's PF* _____ *(my performance figure. I do I weekly calculation with the position and scaled players production to a scale of 0 to 100).

Working my Chapter 13 Data in my Textbook on Drafting. Shooting for the 2017 first edition in May on Amazon.  

I guess I am excited as I go through the data and wanted to share some fun facts for your 2017 Drafting. Let your mind flow through the data! Enjoy!

FYI- The PF* is my performance figure. I do I weekly calculation with the position and scaled players production to a scale of 0 to 100. Thus you can compare all players together. 

*This is a great weekly advantage that the "other" sites can not deliver 

In my Textbook I will have the complete weekly PF look into the 2016 17 week season! Below is the Seasonal average of PF for each major player! 

****  These PFs make great TIER Boundaries ****




















Friday, February 17, 2017

One figure from my Chapter 6 in my textbook due May 2017. 2016 RB and WR positions in terms of scaled to average of EOS PF vs PS ADP levels

Working my Chapter 6 Data in my Textbook on Drafting. Shooting for the 2017 first edition in May on Amazon.  

I guess I am excited as I go through the data and wanted to share some fun facts for your 2017 Drafting.

Figure 42 in my Chapter 6 focuses attention on a comparison between the 2016 RB and WR positions in terms of scaled to average. We can now define success as above the average, positive numbers. Negative numbers will note failures. This figure contains the numbers of successes above the average over the 48th RBs and WRs. The dashed black line denoted the success failure breakpoint. The rounds are divided by the pink dotted lines. The actual positions and their successes are displayed within each round.

The two patterns numerically are; RBs 8, 8, 3 and 7 successes and WRs are 8, 9, 6 and 3 successes.

The y-axis is the scaled End of Season Performance (Dec 2016) vs the preseason ADP level (Sept 2016)

I conclude that in 2016;
  • The WRs were best early and riskier later. 
  • The RBs were good early but come back in the 4th round. 
  • Third round RBs (3 successes) could be those that a weak lead RBs or in time-share while the 4 round may have the next up lead RBs getting a chance with injuries or poor lead RBs performance. Focus your RB draft plans accordingly.


Sunday, February 12, 2017

2016 ADP (180th ADP or Less) Sept 2016 vs End of Season Fantasy Points Scored


FYI

Working on updating my Textbook on drafting and have been drilling down deep into the data. 
Here is the first figure and draft write up for my Chapter 6 redo in my Drafting Textbook. 

===============================

Chapter 6. Clues for Drafting; ADP vs. Seasonal Player Performance


I analyzed the relationship of the QB, RB, TE, and WR players ranked by their pre-season ADP (PS-ADP to about the 180th player number – total position except DEF and K) and their end-of-season long PPR points scored (ES PPR) to determine how strong the finish was for each position PS-ADP vs. the ES-PPR. The first figure of this data of the PS-ADP vs. ES-PPR from the years 2016 is presented in Figure 36.

The first quest was to determine what was the differences in the players on an ADP draft list 180th or less or players greater than a 180th ADP level.  (ADP 2016 and earlier historical data is available free at several websites, I randomly picked one and used it through the chapter)

In Figure 36 in the top table, each position is listed, grouped into players at the EOS, and the average of their PF calculated. The EOS PF data was normalized on a scale of 0 to 100. 

The QB position showed that QBs on the PS ADP list in 2016 averaged a EOS PF of 54.2 while those not drafted in Sept had an average of 34.3. The overall EOS PF was 47.1. The scaled column took the PF scoring average and subtracted the grand average of 47.1, Those QBs drafted in the PS were on average 7.1 above positional average and those QB not drafted in PS were -12.8 below the EOS positional average. 

You can go through the other positions as well.

Looking into the scaled numbers of each position, certain conclusions can be drawn from the 2016 data and figure 36 top and bottom.

1)      As an average, the RB players not drafted as shown by the ADP PS list did not do very well in the EOS PF.  The RB ADP Yes vs. NO calculation shown in the bottom of the figure and was 2.4. That means that RBs which were in the top 180 or less of all position ADP 2016 did 2.4 times better vs. the RBs not within the 180 ADP 2016 List.  Few surprise bargains.  When in doubt do not draft an unranked (>180 ish ADP) RB player.


2)      In 2016, the QB, TE and WR positions were very similar in +-180 ADP range.  TE Yes vs No were at 1.9 as much, WR were 1.7 as much and QB was 1.6 times as much. So more bargains to be had at >180 ADP QBs than all other positions.

3)   High ADP WRs were also a source of bargains. The TEs were better than RBs but not as good as WR/QB. This suggest on average looking for a deep sleeper will be ordered from Best to Worst. QB>WR>>TE>>RBs. You have better chances at finding surprises in QB and WR! Remember on Draft day in the Summer! 

Hope your enjoyed my first 2017 Preseason Post!

Featured Post

2017 Winning Dynasty and Redraft Fantasy Football Drafts by John Bush with Dave Cherney (Associate Editor)

2017 Winning Dynasty and Redraft Fantasy Football Drafts LINK Click the Link Above to go to Amazon and Buy Early and Often ...