It's simple NFL 'Mass-ematics'
With the NFL draft over, the process of trying to evaluate the fantasy value of players on new teams or in new roles can truly begin in earnest. But before we gaze into the crystal ball for 2009, it's important to take one last look back at the 2008 season to see whether we might have missed some information the first time around.
Let me pose a question to you: If there are problems with the statistics we use to evaluate players in the first place, how can we buy into the results of those evaluations? The answer is that we can't, yet that's what we end up doing, season after season, putting our faith in numbers that are easily manipulated by our own methodology.
For example, who was the better fantasy player in 2008, Brian Westbrook or Maurice Jones-Drew? In ESPN.com standard leagues, Westbrook scored six more points. However, a quick look at their numbers tips the scales slightly in the other direction. Jones-Drew had 59 more total yards, and each player scored 14 touchdowns. Most people would have expected Westbrook to have better raw numbers. The two backs are ranked fairly close to each other anyway, but we still didn't really answer the question.
That's what this article intends to do. By using a new form of mathematics, some NFL "Mass-ematics," if you will, I will show you that some players have much more potential than you might think -- while others really don't live up to their hype -- if all you do is look at the final point totals.
After all, football is a team sport, and teams have just undergone several months of playing musical chairs with their rosters. The accurate quarterback who had stone-hands receivers in 2008 might now be blessed with Jerry Rice clones in 2009. The receiver who caught everything thrown his way but didn't get many thrown his way in 2008 might be the go-to guy for his team in 2009. The running back who was splitting carries …
Using Mass-ematics, I will attempt to identify exactly which player is which. Read on.
One of the most confusing stats across all sports is the NFL's passer rating, and there's no easy way to describe it. Essentially, each quarterback is given a value between 0 and, for some reason, 2.375 in each of four categories: completion percentage, passing yards, touchdowns and interceptions. Then those four numbers are added together, divided by 6 and multiplied by 100 to get a number between 0 and 158.3.
Frankly, this formula has never made any sense to me because it sets a limit to the best possible performance. In a single game, a quarterback who goes 9-for-11 for 218 yards and two scores is considered "perfect." Yet so is the quarterback who goes 20-for-25 for 314 yards and six scores. But how can both be perfect when one is so obviously better than the other?
That's why I've come up with my own rating for quarterbacks. Simply put, I've taken the same four categories the NFL uses for its quarterback rating, but instead of assigning an arbitrary value to each, I've awarded each quarterback more points the greater his stats are compared with the average per attempt.
Just for a basic understanding, the average number of touchdown passes in 2008 by NFL quarterbacks who threw at least 14 passes per game was 18. Any quarterback who didn't throw at least that many passes per game wouldn't have had much value to a fantasy football owner throughout the course of the season, because more often than not, he would be holding a clipboard rather than taking snaps under center. So, Kyle Orton, with 18 touchdowns, would receive zero points in that category. Drew Brees and Philip Rivers would receive the most points in that category, and so on.
After adding up all these numbers, I gave the highest-scoring quarterback a perfect score of 100 and adjusted the rest of the scores off that watermark to see exactly how much better he was than his nearest competition. Here are the top 20 quarterbacks using the new Mass-ematics. (Brett Favre's stats are included in the average, but because he's retired -- we assume for good this time -- and has no 2009 value, we've removed him from the list below.)
Better than the fantasy rank indicates
Tony Romo, Cowboys: Romo and Roy Williams never quite connected in 2008, keeping his completion percentage down. But considering how many touchdowns he was able to throw in so few attempts, he's still worth it as an every-week starter.
Matt Schaub, Texans: Just imagine how high he would be on this list if he had played in all 16 games instead of just 11. That's the value of looking at the stats on a per-attempt basis rather than just the season totals.
Not quite as good as advertised
Philip Rivers, Chargers: The touchdown numbers are indeed impressive, but Rivers ranked 11th in completions last season, and with LaDainian Tomlinson and Darren Sproles sucking up touches in the Chargers' backfield, that number won't grow. He's good, but he's not top 3-good.
Eli Manning, Giants: Manning was praised for his ball control and efficiency all last season, and many see him as a borderline fantasy starter. I'm sorry, but the numbers say otherwise. Too many picks and too many drops.
Outside the top 20
Tyler Thigpen: Perhaps the reason the Chiefs traded for Matt Cassel had a bit to do with Thigpen's being ranked No. 23 in the Mass quarterback ratings, a 12-spot drop from his 11th-place ESPN Fantasy points rank.
We expect 100 yards and a score from our top running backs each and every game. Anything more than that is gravy, and anything less is a disappointment. The problem with looking at the final totals at running back, though, is that they doesn't tell you how consistent a runner is throughout the course of the season. Sure, a back such as LenDale White can win you a game all by himself with 32 fantasy points in Week 7, but he also can lose the championship for you with only two points in Weeks 15 and 17. That's why we don't like the fact that White was a top-20 running back according to the final ESPN fantasy points rankings; they fail to take into account the most important asset a fantasy back can possess: consistency.
That's the focus of our Mass-ematics for running backs. Rather than simply rank runners according to their yardage totals and touchdowns scored, I've added in the consistency factor, or what I call "safety," in the form of standard deviation. I'd much rather own a back like Kevin Smith, who I pretty much can count on to produce 10 fantasy points week in and week out than to roll the dice with a feast-or-famine back such as Ronnie Brown, even if Brown did end up with more overall fantasy points for the season. Here are the top 25 running backs using Mass-ematics.
Better than the fantasy rank indicates
Jamal Lewis, Browns: Say what you want about his age, but he'll give you around 80 combined yards nearly every week. That's not enough to make him a first- or second-round pick, but you could do a lot worse for your second back.
Derrick Ward, Giants (in 2008; now with the Bucs): The fact that he almost made the top 20 in ESPN fantasy points despite having just one game of 20 or more rushes speaks to how incredible Ward was in a limited role in 2008. Given the chance to be "the man" in Tampa Bay should raise his value even more.
Not quite as good as advertised
Steven Jackson, Rams: When healthy, he's a monster, but let's face it, he has missed a quarter of the season each of the past two years, making him a risky selection. He's certainly worth the upside, but that downside can kill your playoff hopes in an instant.
Brian Westbrook, Eagles: Westbrook is one of the best backs in the game -- about half the time. Sure, he'll get you 20-30 (or more) fantasy points more often than any other running back, but what about all those games in which he gets one, three or four points? Add them all up, and he's just not as good as the sum of his parts.
Outside the top 20
Justin Fargas: I'm relatively unimpressed with Darren McFadden. Certainly, if Fargas doesn't start for the Raiders, he isn't worth starting in fantasy, but he still ranked 34th using Mass-ematics, a good 12-spot jump over his ESPN fantasy points rank. So having him on the bench just in case could pay huge dividends.
What allows a wide receiver to rack up enough fantasy points to make a difference? First, it's opportunity in the form of targets. After all, you can't catch the ball if it isn't thrown your way. Next, it's making the most of those opportunities in the form of receptions. The quarterback can look your way on every single down, but if you have a severe case of the dropsies, you're about as valuable as the team mascot. Finally, there's the number of yards a receiver gains after each catch he makes. Touchdowns, well, they're just gravy.
I've come up with a stat called "deep value," which combines all those factors into a single number that indicates how close a receiver is to maximizing his production in relation to the league average for wide receivers. We then combine each receiver's rank in that category with the actual number of fantasy points he scored in 2008 to come up with his "optimal worth," which is the relative rating we have used to compose our Mass-ematics rankings at wide receiver.
Better than the fantasy rank indicates
Devery Henderson, Saints: Henderson was one of the few players to exceed 10 in deep value, thanks to a ridiculous 24.8 yards per catch. The sheer home run potential that exists each time he and Drew Brees are on the field gives him far more value than most of his peers.
Anthony Gonzalez, Colts: He caught 72 percent of the balls Peyton Manning threw his way, and far more of them should be aimed in his direction now that Marvin Harrison isn't around.
Not quite as good as advertised
Brandon Marshall, Broncos: The 181 targets he saw last season are an insanely high number that likely won't be repeated with Kyle Orton at the helm. It's the primary reason for his huge drop in these rankings.
Terrell Owens, Cowboys (in 2008; now with the Bills): If Owens caught fewer than 50 percent of the passes sent his way from Tony Romo, how's he going to fare with Trent Edwards under center?
Outside the top 20
Amani Toomer, Giants: He might be the most reliable receiver left on the team, yet he still fell 14 slots from 47th in the ESPN fantasy points rankings to 61st in optimal worth.
Although a few tight ends have no business being on a fantasy roster because they simply are used as glorified offensive linemen, the majority of them are becoming integral parts of NFL offensive schemes. As such, we'll use the same criteria to judge their worth as we did for wide receivers, but of course we'll compare apples to apples here and use the league average for tight ends as the basis for our deep value and optimal worth values.
Better than the fantasy rank indicates
Tony Scheffler, Broncos: We're not sure whether he'll end up staying in Denver, but if he does, expect a lot of passes to be sent his way, and he averaged 16.1 yards per catch in 2008.
Visanthe Shiancoe, Vikings: Both he and Anthony Fasano surge up the rankings thanks to their seven touchdown receptions apiece. It's true they have far fewer catches than many of the traditional top-tier tight ends, but they also do more with those catches.
Not quite as good as advertised
Tony Gonzalez, Chiefs (in 2008; now with the Falcons): We're certainly not suggesting he's washed up, but a change in scenery and a possible decrease in targets in 2009 might see him fall from the top fantasy scoring slot, especially if he fails to reach at least 10 touchdowns in Atlanta.
Jason Witten, Cowboys: Actually, the only thing Witten did wrong was not find the end zone as frequently as some of his fellow tight ends. Considering the high number of targets he saw in the Cowboys' offense, he probably should have reached pay dirt more often, and that's why his value drops in my estimation.
Outside the top 15
Brent Celek, Eagles: Had Celek qualified, he would have ranked 22nd among tight ends on this list, a 10-place jump from his ESPN fantasy points ranking. With L.J. Smith no longer around in Philadelphia, expect him to become a factor in 2009.AJ Mass is a fantasy baseball, football and college basketball analyst for ESPN.com. You can e-mail him here.
