493: Mailbag 3/26/21

00:00:02
Speaker 1: This is the Labor Podcast with your host JJ zacher Retha jj zacher reson What's up everyone? It's JJ Zachares and the editor in chief at FANDL and at number fire dot com in this episode four hundred and ninety three of the Late Round Podcast. So many shows that are part of the FanDuel podcast network. As always, thanks for tuning in here at the Late Round Podcast, we live and breathe football, but I think we can all agree that March belongs to basketball. And what better way to get caught up in the tournament action than with a huge new TV from best Buy. Right now, you can find great deals on big screen TVs from brands like Samsung and LG. Best Buy will even bring it to you with fast, free curb side pickup and delivery. Visit best buy dot com. Today it's a mailbag week, so let's get to these questions. The first one this week is from at justin rold twenty three. How do you adjust for prospects that elect not to do pro days? Do you give them average athleticism numbers so they aren't dinged in the model. So I got this question a couple of times this week, and I've mentioned this before, but my model really doesn't care about athleticism testing. I have thresholds for speed score running back, and then nothing at wide receiver. The only thing I'm really interested in is height and weight, which we usually do get from players, not always, though, in the case is where we don't. I just define the generally accepted numbers. But that doesn't happen all that frequently, and in the case of someone like DeVante Smith, it's not like any weight number is going to dramatically change the way that I feel about DeVante Smith. He's going to have a small BMI no matter what, so it's not the biggest deal in the world. Anything athleticism related, though, is mostly added subjectively in my process. I'm more concerned about their frame, their production, their age adjusted production, their draft capital, and some other factors that I've talked about before on the show. This last question from at Data war UK is it ever a good idea to sell a top tier running back in Dynasty. I've been getting offers for Ezekiel Elliott all off season and now have a solid offer which includes DeAndre Hopkins in a future first round pick. Is the advantage of having a top tier running back too great to sell, even at a really high price. I think selling early on a player is better than not selling at all. And to be honest, Zeke isn't really considered top tier anymore. I think he's generally undervalued across fantasy formats, but he's the RB eleven and March startup adp over on Dynasty League Football dot Com. Having an elite running back is one of the best ways to gain an edge in fantasy football. I won't argue that, and getting that player is not easy to do, but when you're talking about a guy whose years are limited, and you're not talking about a rookie or a second year player, I think it's totally fine to sell, especially for the deal that you're currently getting. I think it's fine to sell any player at the right cost. This last questions from at steven zero one two eight, why don't you take out missed games in your model? It relies so much on market share. Obviously, if a player is hurt and not playing, they have zero percent share for that game. So first off, I never really talked about the how much part of my model on this show. I've talked about everything that goes into it and how one thing might matter more than another, but I don't answer the to what degree piece because it won't make any sense. So before I answer this question in more detail, keep in mind that the different weights for the things that I'm looking at aren't known by anyone other than me. Really, and I don't mean to come off sounding like a jerk there, I just mean that sincerely. I think it's best for anyone listening to this show to not make assumptions on the how much part of that model. That's all, But to answer this question, I don't only use per game numbers for a lot of reasons. First, it doesn't really do anything to the model's end result. I've tested the model. I test it every year. Looking at market share numbers by games played doesn't actually change the results, and that might sound a little bit weird, But keep in mind that I'm looking at the best seasons within each statistic, so if I do it on a per game basis, we can run into serious sample size issues, which is likely why nothing changes with the end result of the model. Not only that, but players aren't missing the entire season very frequently when looking at the larger sample. But for example, you're concerned about players not playing and taking a zero percent market share for that game. If they don't play, they don't see any production in that offense. And it's a very valid thing to wonder into question. But on the flip side, what if a player only plays three games in one season and it just so happens that in those three games that player sees an obscene number of receiving yards. All of a sudden, you've got the exact same problem, but in reverse, you're overestimating that players small sample size, and he's gonna look a lot better in the model than he probably should. Another part of this is time, simplicity, and the utilization of this model. I can't stress enough that this thing is there to guide me. I don't just draft off of what my models says. I use the model to help me spot gems and to make sure that I'm seeing as much as I possibly can see within a draft class. If I know going on a game by game basis isn't going to result in that much more of an edge and it's not going to change the result of the model, then I'm not going to spend time moving forward with that. When I'm not blindly following the model. This isn't to say that I'm lazier. I don't think that I'm lazy. I'm just focusing on the things that I found that matter more, and in the end, I'm digging into the stories of each of these prospects. Anyway, I did that with Ramandre Stevenson a couple of months ago, where I looked at how his market share numbers looked when he was actually active. So overall, because of all that, I'm just not that concerned enough about it. I don't need to be concerned about it. That's why I'm looking at whole seasons for market share and not just the per game stuff. That's questions from at Luke Angelica one, Hey, JJ, love the pod. Thanks. Projecting wide receivers on new teams is tricky, and I know that one adjustment you made last year's at good. Wide receivers will always demand targets and their team will get them the ball. Like Diggs in Buffalo, Are you taking the same approach with Kenny Galladay? They are different types of players in different situations. Wondering if there is any relation between the two scenarios. Thanks, Yeah, so, as I alluded to on the show earlier in the week. I think Galladay is going to capture a significant target share in the Giants offense, and by significant I mean in like the low twenty percent area. That's around where he was at with the Lions, and we generally see really good elite wide receivers almost always hit that twenty five percent mark. I don't think we can assume Golladay is elite. But the main point here is that anyone who's worried about competition, I wouldn't worry about competition. Kenny Galladay is a better wide receiver than Darius Slayton. He's better than Sterling Shepard. He's going to be a better target than Evan Ingram. The too many MOUs defeat argument matters to some degree, as I've said, but not as much from a floor standpoint, I'd be shocked if Galladay ended the year playing sixteen games and he had something like a sixteen percent target shair. But don't can pair of Galladay to Stephan Diggs. I don't really see any comparison here at all, aside from the fact that they switched teams. Diggs not only is better, but he stepped into a situation where the quarterback for his team saw one of the biggest jumps in efficiency that we've ever seen in NFL history. That cannot be the expectation for Daniel Jones. The only connection here is that you have a questionable quarterback or people questioning that quarterback, and then a new wide receiver. That's it. From a projection standpoint. Though Galladay should see a strong target share, he would have no matter where he landed. This last questions from at a underscore wag eighty how should we approach unproductive rookies from twenty twenty? I really enjoyed your previous episodes on this and maybe I need a refresher, But what is the criteria for production that you are using and how does it apply to last year's rookies. Thanks love the show and the work that you do. Thanks so I don't necessarily have criteria because I think that looking at thresholds, at least in that way isn't always helpful. What that episode taught, which was called bailing on Unproductive Rookies, was that when a rookie wide receiver running back didn't do a whole lot during their rookie season, it generally meant that they weren't going to be very successful. In fantasy football throughout the rest of their career. But that's just one side of the equation here. The other side is what the market is saying. For instance, Brian Edwards even though he was hurt, which is technically good for his outlook because there's something that you can grab hold on when looking his bad rookie season. But the market isn't saying to get Brian Edwards. He's cheap to acquire. So the whole concept on bailing on unproductive rookies doesn't really matter for Brian Edwards. I actually had Edwards as a by candidate this offseason. It's more about what I talked about last off season with Nikil Harry. I liked Harry coming into the league. It was a big l Nikkeil Harry is not nearly as good as I thought he was going to be, and he looked bad his rookie season. So over last off season I had him as a sell candidate because you could still extract value by trading away Nikill Harry. If you can't get any value from the player, it doesn't matter. It's bailing on the unproductive rookies who still have relatively high ADPs. That's really the criteria that I'm looking at. Those are the players you should be focused on. And by the way, when I'm talking about unproductive, I'm talking about guys who really did not do a lot at all. Because keep in mind, rookie players are not going to perform as well as veterans will, so the baseline there is a lot lower. This next question is from at Pumley Underscore Drew, how does your model compare twenty twenty one running backs to the twenty twenty class. The twenty twenty running back class was better, straight up a lot better. Like I've said on this show, I think there are only three guys this year who can walk in and have true belcow rookie seasons. Those three being Najie Harris, Traves, ETN and Javonte Williams. I'm sure we'll have some surprises, but this class is not very deep. Last year's class was actually pretty deep. But my model is not complete without draft capital, so we'll see for now. Looking at the pre draft stuff, this run class is weaker and total than what we saw last year. The last question this week is from at Phillip Wilson fifty six. It says JJ I'm intrigued by Mike Davis's landing spot with Atlanta relative to redraft. I think the fantasy community is snoozing on this situation. Please tell me why I'm wrong. Okay, So this answer is one of those answers that someone could really take the wrong way. So I've got to be as clear as possible here, and this is sort of a game theory answer too, But here goes. One of the things that's been going through my mind recently is that there aren't actually a lot of running backs out there who can take on starting roles right now. And what I mean by that is when you look at the free agency landscape right now, it's not like you're staring at a list of running backs who can step in and just be Bellcows. And then with this year's draft, like I just said, I think there are three running backs who are sort of scary who can get drafted and be bell Cows right away. Again, those being Harris Etn and Javonte Williams. So that actually tells us that there's probably a higher chance than people realize for Mike Davis to get serious work in the Atlanta backfield this season. But this is where I need to be clear with my stance, Do I expect Mike Davis to be their guy? No, of course not. When the signing went down, I said to myself, Cool, that doesn't matter. He's a twenty eight year old running back who's coming off his most significant and arguably his only relevant fantasy season of his career. I'm not going to bank on that. But we shouldn't make assumptions in this game when everyone else is making that assumption. When everyone makes the same assumption, you're not actually gaining any sort of competitive edge with that assumption. If everyone believes the Falcons are gonna draft one of the big three running backs, then what good does it do to say that Mike Davis is going to be irrelevant? This is why I always say to look at this stuff with a probability lens. The probability that Mike Davis is the lead back for the Falcons next year not great. Trust me, I'm not saying that it's great. Please don't walk away from today's episode with the thought that I believe that Mike Davis is going to be Atlanta's lead back. What I'm saying is, if your entire league believes it's a one hundred percent uncertainty that Mike Davis won't be the starter for the Falcons. But you think that there's like a ninety five percent chance that he won't, then you can take advantage of that gap. Those are the gaps in fantasy football to attack. So if nothing changes to Mike Davis's ADP as a result of this signing, I think that's objectively wrong. He's in a place right now where there's a non zero chance that things look good for him in twenty twenty one, and with not a whole lot of running backs out there for the Falcons to lock in as true bell Cow's, there's a chance that Davis at least gets some work now. I do expect Atlanta to draft a running back, but look across the league. Pittsburgh is the other spot with Atlanta where it seems like they'll be in for one of those running backs. But there are a whole lot of teams who could realistically go after one of those big three backs. Arizona, Miami, New England, Denver, the Jets Hell, maybe even Jacksonville. There aren't three teams who have a shot at three backs, and the chance that those three backs just happen to fall to three teams that have an obvious need like Pittsburgh or Atlanta. That's not very high either. That's not how this works. So what I'm saying here is I'm not in the game of taking some stand and saying Mike Davis won't get any touches next year. This move was worthless for fantasy football because it doesn't do us any good to say that, Like if I sat on my show and I said that, then you're just getting obvious fantasy advice. Saying avoid Mike Davis is not helpful. We know the chances of Mike Davis hitting they're not high. If Davis's ADP doesn't budge whatsoever, though, that's your opportunity to get him for next to nothing, because I do think in most cases, the chances that a replacement level player sees work is usually greater than what people initially think. The fantasy football world thinks way way too cleanly about these situations. These situations never end up the exact way we think they're gonna end up, and as a result, you'll get these out of nowhere winners that no one expected. Now, I doubt that Mike Davis is gonna be that winner, but I would bet that in my mind the probability of him being a winner is greater than in someone else's mind. That's going to do it for today's show, though. Thanks to all of you for listening. If you get subscribe to the Late Round podcast, make sure you are by searching for it pretty much anywhere podcasts can be found, and don't forget to follow me on Twitter at Late Round QB. Thanks for listening everyone, I'll talk to you next week.