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


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!

Popular posts from this blog

Running Backs and their 2016 Passing Targets and Rushing Attempts. Scaled Numbers with Rushing to Pass Ratios, Bias Analysis

Early MFL10s 2017 ADPs with rankings and risk analysis.

Post Draft MFL 10 ADPs_Player Risk and Ranks_Draft Pick Advantages_Numerous Action Packed Data Figures!