485: Mailbag 2/26/21

00:00:02
Speaker 1: This is the lad Podcast with your host JJ zacher Resa J J. Zacher reson what's up everyone? It's JJ Zachareson, the editor in chief at FANDEL and at number five dot com in this episode four hundred and eighty five of the Late Round podcast when many shows that are part of the FanDuel podcast network. Thanks for tuning in right now. FanDuel Sportsbook is giving you a chance to bet on any NBA or soccer game with reduced risk with their exclusive same Game Parlay insurance. Simply plays a four leg or more parlay to be eligible for the offer and follow along as the game unfolds. If exactly one leg loses, Fandel will refund your bet up to twenty five dollars in site credit. So head to FanDuel's Sportsbook and place your same game parlay today. Must be twenty one years or older in President of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, West Virginia, Indiana, Colorado, Tennessee, Iowa, Virginia, and Michigan. Refundation does not with your able site credit. Max refund twenty five dollars. Terms apply. Gambling problem call one hundred gambler in West Virginia. Visit one hundred gambler dot net and Indiana call one hundred nine with it, in Colorado call one hundred five to two forty seven hundred, and in Iowa call one hundred bets off. It's a mailbag show, So let's get to these questions. The first question this week is from at Azon Frehley. Is it possible that high draft capital from a better performing organization i EIYUK to San Francisco matters more than draft capital from a worse one cough Henry Ruggs to the Raiders cough. Or is it already captured in the general assessment of better environment? So I'm sure there's some argument to be made, like if you're a wide receiver drafted by the Steelers, for instance, But there have been studies showing that the draft is largely random, that no team has this significant significant edge over another team. Now, maybe they do at certain positions. Maybe the Steelers actually do have an edge at wide receiver. The sample size just might not be large and for us to conclude that, And I haven't done any work around this, and I haven't read anything on it. So if you've read something, definitely definitely shoot me a link to that study. But with the example that you used with Ayuk versus Rugs, I feel like it's coming from a place of looking at the result. Brandon Ayuk is the better wide receiver right now and the way better dynasty asset based on what happened during that twenty twenty season. But Ruggs had the higher draft capital. So this question is almost phrased in a way where we're saying it's the Raiders fault, as opposed to saying Henry Ruggs was just overvalued and he would have been overvalued by more than just the Raiders, Because I think the latter is true. We know that teams liked Henry Ruggs, but like in my model, Henry Ruggs, despite his draft capital, he ranked in the ninety first percentile as a prospect. Brandon Ayuk, who was drafted twelve picks after Henry Ruggs, he had a near identical persentile score. So what that tells you is that Ayuk was the better raw prospect according to my model, Ruggs just got boosted because his draft capital. So I'm not sure the reason for something like this is organizational driven. It's going to be largely player driven. Rugs could have easily gone to a better team organizationally and still have been drafted ahead of Brandon Ayuk, and he could have been just as bad of a fantasy asset to start his career. And maybe as a result of that, this question doesn't even get asked. It's just that they landed on these teams where one of those teams always seems to do the wrong thing, that being the Raiders. But no team is flawless in the draft. So draft capital, while it does matter, it's not everything, especially when you're talking about two first round picks. Now, if the question is asked more simply as do organizations matter, then I would say yeah, Intuitively yes, if you're going to a school that has really crappy teachers versus a school that has really good teachers, you're gonna be better off going to the school with really good teachers. So I'm sure it matters to some degree. I just have no idea how you'd really measure that. Given the factors that go into what makes a player good or not good, it's clearly not only the organization that makes a player good. The player himself has to be good. But sure, I think it's part of it, I think organizational structure matters. Now. I know that answer is kind of all over the place, but it's a really tough question to answer in a really direct and concise way, but I hope that it helps. The next question is another one about draft capital from at Gan's underscore me that says, HI, appreciate your work, thanks for models that figure in where a player was selected in the draft. Is there any way to control for the fact that one wide receiver class is particularly strong or loaded thinking about the twenty twenty wide receiver class and how Day three wide receivers may have been Day two picks in a weaker wide receiver year. So I've been asked this before because I talked about draft capital during the offseason on the show all the time, and I don't think it really matters, like it might for some wide receivers at times, sure, but overall, I don't think this is that big of a deal. Like if a wide receiver draft class sucks, then they won't get picked early. It's not like teams totally forced the issue based on need. Look at last year. Last year saw six first round wide receivers and seven second round wide receivers. It was projected to be a good wide receiver class, and then draft capital back that up. We clearly don't have six first round wide receivers every single year to go along with seven second round wide receivers. That doesn't happen every single season. Those players were drafted higher because those players are good at football. They weren't drafted higher because of supply and demand. Honestly, if it were supply and demand related, you could make the argument that they should have been drafted later than they were because there were lots of good wide receivers in that class, so teams didn't feel the need to reach, but really, based on draft capital, they did technically reach. Now I understand what you're saying that if a wide receiver class has like fifty good wide receivers and other classes typically have like twenty good wide receivers, then eventually players will get pushed back in drafts. And like I said, maybe that's true for a player or two, like maybe Tyler Johnson would have been picked in the fourth round rather than the fifth round in any other draft class. But I think it's important to not exaggerate how that would change things. And then you have to think about the application of draft capital here too. We may have had a good idea that this wide receiver class from twenty twenty that it was going to be good, but that wasn't a guarantee. Just because players are drafted in certain spots doesn't guarantee they're going to be good. You would know after the fact, sure, but after the fact it's too late, because by that point in time you've already seen them play in the NFL and you're not doing your rookie drafts. I just think something like this is probably overthinking it a bit, like, yeah, maybe there's something there for specific wide receivers, But think of it this way. Let's say that you've got a fifth round wide receiver who hits and he came from a really good draft class. Does that tell you that he would have been a third round wide receiver if he was in a crappy draft class. In my opinion, it doesn't tell you that at all. But I don't think that would really tell you anything aside from the fact that teams missed out on a good player. The way you'd probably figure that out is by looking at good draft classes in the past and then seeing if those classes had a lot of good day three hits, and I can tell you that looking at the twenty fourteen class, for instance, was one of the best ones that we've seen. I'm not sure you have any sustainable wide receiver picks who came after pick one hundred. The best is like quincy A Nunwah or maybe Martavis Bryant. Now I could be missing someone here because I just skimmed my database, but it's not like that really really good wide receiver class had all these great Day three wide receivers, and like last year, who was drafted after pick one hundred that was only pushed down because of the depth of the class. Like I hope to the fantasy football gods that Tyler Johnson becomes a thing, or that Quinta's cephist can ball out, But it's really Darnell Mooney that looks like a good hit, and that's it. Maybe others end up hitting, but let's not pretend that it's happening frequently. So no, I don't think the depth of a position going into a draft should alter how we view draft capital. This last questions from at Myron Isaacs JJ. After listening to your twenty twenty one pre draft running back analysis, I wonder if you have an update on your twenty twenty pre slash post draft running back analysis with twenty twenty season hindsight. Did season results follow your model expectations? So I think one thing to remember is that my model was predicting the output for a player's first three years, not his first year, So technically it's a little bit hard to answer this question. Now. With that being said, we can generally tell who's trending the right way, and so far, so good. I mentioned on the show earlier this week that eight different running backs hit that eightieth percentile mark in my model this past year, and they were all guys that you'd expect based on draft capital. They were the top eight running backs drafted, so players like Zach Moss, Lynn Boden, Darrnton Evans they went in Round three, but my model didn't have them hit that eightieth percentile mark. And then if you look at last year's draft class, the only hit really outside of those players outside of those Day one and Day two picks was James Robinson. And I liked James Robinson despite the fact that he was un draftfted, So overall last year is looking really good. Aside from Keishaan Vaughan. Of course, this next one was a little bit long, so I had to shorten it. But it says JJ love the content as always, and I can't believe it's Dynasty rookie time already again. Thank you for the j Rob help last year. Awesome hit. Thanks. I'm always looking for a late pick or undrafted rookie running back to stash. As you always advise, the upside is the pass catching ability with the right size. Now, I'm a big ten guy and two running backs are being overlooked, likely due to limited production, but maybe to my gain. Michigan's Evans and Indiana Scott are the two, and they seem to profile as three down backs and deep prospects. Neil, so let's start with Chris Evans from Michigan. His numbers in my model, they're not great. His best season touchdown share was twenty percent, which if you listened to the show earlier this week, you would remember that that's significantly lower than the stud sample average or what we see from successful NFL running backs. This season. Reception share was fine enough at eight point seven percent, but he had a really, really bad best season yards per team play rate. It was under one that's one of the worst in the class. He does have good size, but there's not a whole lot analytically to like about him. Of course, anything can happen, but he's not someone who I'm prioritizing right now. With Stevie Scott, I think there's a little bit more there. I like Scott more than I like Evans. He's got a similar BMI as Evans, but his production was just stronger across the board, and he's got age on his side. Chris Evans definitely does not. If I were to place a bet, I'd say that neither guy is going to be really fantasy relevant at the next level. That's just based on their current profile. But of course I'm always open to being wrong, and I recognize that there's tons and tons of varians here because prospecting is very hard. The best questions from at Bob Forrest three, am I the only one who thinks Miles Sanders could bring league winning value in all formats. Seems like he'll be a mid to late second round guy. I think anyone being drafted in the first or second or third round should be able to provide that kind of upside. If they can't they're not worth drafting there, and Miles Sanders definitely has that upside. Yes, I've mentioned before on this show that I don't think Doug Peterson being gone should necessarily make you like Miles Sanders more because Sanders' market share numbers last year when he was active they were totally fine. I think you should like Sanders because he's good, and he's likely to have a big workload, and it was good to see him thrive down the stretch with Jalen Hurts under center. So no, you're not the only one. Anyone who's listening to the show knows that I love Miles Sanders. Miles Sanders has a ton of upside. I just wish that we could feel a little bit better and more secure about the environment of that Eagles offense. This last question is from at DLP Sports, Curious on your thoughts on DeAndre Swift. Similar to James Robinson, It wouldn't shock me if they add another guy to that running back room. That being said, Swift's role is more secure and safe, and they've been talking him up. I lean to the Swift takeover side, but curious where you value him. Yeah, I would lean that way as well. I do think from a rankings perspective that there shouldn't be such a gap between Swift and some of the other running backs from last year's class. But Swift is a great pass catcher, and I think that's what's going to separate him from a James Robinson type who you reference in this question. It's the fact that if they add another piece of that backfield, Swift's production is going to be less responsive to that piece because he's likely to be used heavily as a receiver, or at least we should feel good about his use as a receiver from a projection standpoint, With someone like James Robinson, who obviously wasn't as highly touted coming out, you're worried about a player really digging into his workload, and it's a workload that is not very sustainable. What James Robinson did last year from a running back rush year standpoint, that is not going to happen this year. I would be incredibly, incredibly shocked if it happened once again. But yeah, Swift is a great player and I would be more than happy to have him on my fantasy rosters. The last question this week is from at CF game Breaker. How much do you factor in things like team red zone, pass to rush ratio, red zone completion percentage, et cetera into your touchdown regression analysis. Specifically, wondering about your Aaron Rodgers talk. A few episodes ago, he was close to the top in red zone attempts and dominated red zone completion percentage. Yeah, I mean, look, I look at all of that, But the thing is, those things aren't ultra sticky year over year. How a player performs in the red zone one season doesn't mean he's automatically gonna perform that well the next season. How a team ran plays from within the five yard line one year doesn't mean that they're gonna run plays the same way from the five the next year. And honestly, Aaron Rodgers and what he did in twenty twenty is the perfect example. This past year, Green Bay was second in the NFL and passed a rush rate from within the five. They had a one point six to six pass to rush attempt ratio in twenty nineteen. Their past to rush ratio from within the five was point seven to four that ranked twentieth. Twenty nineteen, they were twentieth in pass rate from within the five This past year they were second. The correlation of pass to rush ratio year over year in that area of the field, it's pretty much nonexistent across the league. So what does that tell us? It tells us that the number regresses that we can't assume the Packers will be so pass heavy when they're that close to the end zone. And I'm specifically calling out that part of the red zone because Aaron Rodgers dominated there this year. It's a key reason he was able to rack up the touchdowns that he racked up. He threw twenty touchdowns from within the five yard line. The next closest players were Tom Brady, Josh Allen, and Russell Wilson. They had fourteen touchdowns. My data that I compile references back to twenty eleven and Rogers twenty touchdowns from that area of the field. That's the highest that we've seen during that timeframe. It's two touchdowns higher than the player in second, which is twenty thirteen's Peyton Manning. That was the season that Manning had fifty five touchdowns. Guys, the key at winning in fantasy football is understanding that what mathematically happened before isn't automatically going to happen again. The key is understanding variance and that regression exists everywhere, because once you can recognize that, most stats in football are not that sticky year over year. Once you recognize that, once you embrace that variance, you're able to easily pinpoint which players you want to target and which players you want to avoid during a draft. That's going to do it for today's show, though, Thanks to all of you for listening. If you've got subscribed to the Late Round podcast, make sure you are by searching for it pretty much anywhere podcasts can be found, and no forget to follow me on Twitter at Late Round QB. Thanks for listening everyone. I hope you enjoy your weekend and I will talk to you next week