Receiver efficiency ... anything new here?

[QuikSand]

Just flipping back through an old favorite from the strategy forum, now moved to the archive.

Receiver Efficiency (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=18615)

I never felt completely satisfied with this, but was thinking about using a metric like this with one of my MP teams (where we have some WR "issues"). Wondering if there's any additional thought on the subject... perhaps from someone who missed this the first time around.

[johnnyshaka]

Great stuff...didn't see it on the first go 'round...and it definitely tweaked some interest.

In an MP league, I'm facing a couple big decisions in regards to contract negotiations and having more tools to evaluate players would be FANTASTIC!!!!

Related to the topic at hand, I've got T.O. and Dane Looker who are both in their last year and both have been great receivers in the 3 seasons I've had them. I've got tons of cap space to sign both of them, but the question is, am I going to get a good return on my investment??

How about factoring in the all mighty dollar??

When I get a little time, I might play around with a couple of the formulas mentioned in your original thread and then try do a cost analysis for the ever elusive efficient receiver.

[cthomer5000]

I was thinking about this again today. Seems like there is something here, but it's tough to know what it's worth.

One thing I've always kind of wondered: Do you think touchdowns should be included in the calculations at all? Are they just a function of right place, right time, or are they a genuine indicator of that specific receiver?

[Warhammer]

If you are looking at WRs only, I would view TDs thusly:

All TD receptions over 30 yards should be included. Other TDs should be viewed based upon the (% of TD receptions)/(% of TD receptions for the team). That should then be compared to their % of receptions. If it is higher than normal, they get a bonus, if less, I don't think it should be a penalty.

I think if the receiver catches a significantly higher % of TDs compared to their receptions, it is significant. This is because it is a function of right place, right time. Unless, it is a much higher % than could be expected (say twice their reception %). All big play TDs are significant as that represents the ability to score all over the field.

[QuikSand]

I was thinking about this again today. Seems like there is something here, but it's tough to know what it's worth.

One thing I've always kind of wondered: Do you think touchdowns should be included in the calculations at all? Are they just a function of right place, right time, or are they a genuine indicator of that specific receiver?

In real football, I definitely think there is a separate skill involved in scoring touchdowns -- in many/most cases, it involves working in space, and creating separation from a defender when the open secondary is not working for you... that's a tougher skill than just running patterns.

In FOF, I could probably be persuaded either way. The big-play receiving skill seems to correlate with TDs somewhet, but I don't know if they are (on further review) of the long play variety or the type described above.

*shurg*

[cthomer5000]

I agree on the real life part, getting open in the confined space in a red zone is a sort of different skill. But in FOF? I'm guessing that it plays just like any other part of the field, simply a function of whether the guy is open or not. Personally I would discount TDs entirely when looking at FOF stats.

There was one specific thought in that other thread that caught my eye, a question of how much a guy should be penalized for a dropped pass. Someone suggested a change from the standardarized 10 yard penalty to the players average. That made a great deal of sense to me, and I did some calculations removing the projected value of that catch. The best way I figured we could do so was to remove the # of drops from the targets to get that number. Basically this is what the guy would get every catch if he didn't drop the ball.

Adjusted YPC

Yards
-----
Targets-Drops


Adjusted Receiver Effeciency

Yards - ((Yards/(Targets-Drops))*Drops)
--------------------------------------
Targets


I think the results make sense. I ran them on the IHOF career numbers and the top was largely dominated by those you would expect (Reggie Norris of Orlando was very high).

Tyrus Shaye of Paris (who just received a gigantic contract from Darkiller) came in extremely, extremely low. It backed up the numberous claims that he's been a bust.

[Vince]

Though I do have to admit it makes sense to penalize a guy his average for every dropped pass, that means that a receiver with a higher average (who you would assume is a 'better' receiver) is being penalized more for 1 drop than a player with a lower average (who you would assume is a 'worse' receiver). I don't know that it makes sense to penalize one guy more for the same event because he is a better receiver.

[Celeval]

Why not Yards / (Catches + Drops)? Then, a drop becomes equal to a completion for 0 yards, which is essentially what it is in the course of the game (stopping of the clock aside).

[Celeval]

Dola... the average yards/catch bit might be more worthwhile if we were looking to measure a quarterback - add the average yards/catch to his yardage for each drop by a receiver to remove that metric from QB play.

[wade moore]

I'm one of those that thinks a calculation here would be very valuable, but I don't know that I have the math mind to come up with something that works...

Quik - I never saw you comment on the formula in the last post on that thread. I like some of the little touches that your formula puts in (like targets), etc.... Do you like that formula posted at the end? Do you think we could tweak it?

[cthomer5000]

Though I do have to admit it makes sense to penalize a guy his average for every dropped pass, that means that a receiver with a higher average (who you would assume is a 'better' receiver) is being penalized more for 1 drop than a player with a lower average (who you would assume is a 'worse' receiver). I don't know that it makes sense to penalize one guy more for the same event because he is a better receiver.
I disagree, I think with what I've proposed you're penalizing every guy his real worth. If a guy didn't drop any balls, that would be his yards per pass attempt. The reality is that a guy with a higher average is costing you more with a drop. Your top WR dropping a pass certainly does hurt you more than your FB dropping the ball.

[QuikSand]

Cross-posted from the IHOF thread:

- - - - -

If you're going to adjust everything based on targeted passes, then this becomes pretty easy to do -- something like:

[Yards receiving + (20 * TD) - (10* Drops)] / # of passes targeted

That, actually, is the formula I use in doing a quick and dirty Excel analysis for my own team's performance each year.


The biggest thing missing, in my view, is what Samdari suggests above -- a quality WR who does indeed "get open" more does have some real value, so some measure of "targeted passes" as a function of pass plays seems reasonable to me.

I toyed with adjusting the denominator of that fraction a bit -- perhaps making it looks something more like:

(0.67 * passes targeted) + (0.33 * 0.20 * pass plays)

...with the underlying theory that a typical receiver might get targeted 20% of the time (though any constant there does fine) and that we'd weight this player's actual targets as two-thirds, and the "baseline" number of targets one-third.

I actually like that better, but it does lose some of the logical simplicity of a simpelr formula.

[QuikSand]

I disagree, I think with what I've proposed you're penalizing every guy his real worth. If a guy didn't drop any balls, that would be his yards per pass attempt. The reality is that a guy with a higher average is costing you more with a drop. Your top WR dropping a pass certainly does hurt you more than your FB dropping the ball.

While I agree with this conceptually, I don't know that it will make a meaningful adjustment to the calculations.

I also, on a more visceral level, get even angrier when a fullback for my team drops an "easy" pass that would have gone for three or five yards... is that just an irrational argument? Or is there a sense of expectations burind into the "drops" stat that might suggest we ought not make an adjustment like this? (i.e. dropping a shorter pass, while it costs less in terms of foregone yardage, is a greater sin on balance, since the play was designed to reduce risks anyway... meaning that the product of lower "lost yardage" and higher "degree of player mistake" becomes closer to a constant)

[Warhammer]

I agree with Quicksand, if I throw a 40 yard bomb to a WR, I expect to complete it maybe 33% of the time. When I am throwing a 2-3 yard flare to the FB, he better damn well catch that ball!

[cthomer5000]

While I agree with this conceptually, I don't know that it will make a meaningful adjustment to the calculations.
I would say it definitely does, it drops the level of penalty for non-WR positions by a pretty significant amount, probably 30-50% in the case of Fullbacks and Tighe Ends.

Now whether or not we should do that is another question. I think it's hard to marry simplicity with an effective rating here.

[slingblade73]

How well does this gauge the guys in your league?

[QuikSand]

I would say it definitely does, it drops the level of penalty for non-WR positions by a pretty significant amount, probably 30-50% in the case of Fullbacks and Tighe Ends.

I agree, but this will, in the end, mostly have a meaningful effect when trying to compare across positions -- which is, by any account, going to be the biggest weakness of this sort of thing anyway.

Yes, the 5 Yds/Rec fullback woudl be penalized less than the 14 Yds/rec wideout... agreed there. Your adjustment would make the wide receiver seem a bit less efficient, and the fullback a bit more so.

But between two wide receivers... a typical starter might drop 10 passes a year. If instead of penalizing 10 yards each, we adjusted it to Yds/rec... then a big hitter type loses 160 yards, and an underneath type loses 120 yards if they both drop 10 balls. That's 40 total yards, spread across something like 120 targets -- and that's a pretty extreme case within the position, I'd think. Yes, it's an adjustemnt... but I'm not sure that within any position it would be much more than cosmetic.

[QuikSand]

How well does this gauge the guys in your league?

I think an efficieny formula like this is a decent tool to judge what you're getting from guys on your own team. Adding in comparisons acros teams (with different QBs, and perhaps completely different offenses) get more dicey.

But using something like this is really helpful to me when I'm trying to work on playing time or contracts for my own players. I think a reserve WR who doesn't get many passes his way but is very productive when he does get them adds real value to an offense... it is sometimes tough to notice that guy when all you're doing is sorting by yards receiving or catches (like we all tend to do).

[slingblade73]

I think an efficieny formula like this is a decent tool to judge what you're getting from guys on your own team. Adding in comparisons acros teams (with different QBs, and perhaps completely different offenses) get more dicey.

But using something like this is really helpful to me when I'm trying to work on playing time or contracts for my own players. I think a reserve WR who doesn't get many passes his way but is very productive when he does get them adds real value to an offense... it is sometimes tough to notice that guy when all you're doing is sorting by yards receiving or catches (like we all tend to do).

I have some tools I use and they worked well by taking a 5-11 team to the second round of the playoffs. I will see if the team I signed stay solid. If it does then I am onto something. I spent the better part of the day working on the formulas. Incidentally, the two WR's I signed made huge impacts on the team. They were cheap and productive and rated high in my eval. Stay tuned.

[QuikSand]

I agree with Quicksand, if I throw a 40 yard bomb to a WR, I expect to complete it maybe 33% of the time. When I am throwing a 2-3 yard flare to the FB, he better damn well catch that ball!

However, in that 33% figure, you are assuming that a lot of things can go wrong in a long pass -- including lots of things that have nothing to do with the receiver dropping the ball (longer pass = more chance for errant placement).

Hmm... but this begs a question, to me.


Do we think that a "drop" in the game is basically a play that survived all the calculations (dice rolling) up to the point of a reception, but then just failed that final test? That's essentially what I've been thinking... the receiver is "open" enough to get the pass thrown his way, the QB delivers the pass, the defender is not able to break it up, and then the receiver has to make the catch... but fails. is that how we think all this is calculated? (I assume so, but if it's otherwise, we might have a logical flaw in some of these calculations)

[cthomer5000]

Do we think that a "drop" in the game is basically a play that survived all the calculations (dice rolling) up to the point of a reception, but then just failed that final test? That's essentially what I've been thinking... the receiver is "open" enough to get the pass thrown his way, the QB delivers the pass, the defender is not able to break it up, and then the receiver has to make the catch... but fails. is that how we think all this is calculated? (I assume so, but if it's otherwise, we might have a logical flaw in some of these calculations)
This is my exact belief. The ball survived being thrown, being defended, but the WR flat-out dropped it.

[slingblade73]

That is always how I understood a drop.

[Vince]

I disagree, I think with what I've proposed you're penalizing every guy his real worth. If a guy didn't drop any balls, that would be his yards per pass attempt. The reality is that a guy with a higher average is costing you more with a drop. Your top WR dropping a pass certainly does hurt you more than your FB dropping the ball.
Yeah, I can definitely understand the logic behind it, but something in me rankles in costing a better receiver more per drop than a worse receiver.

Perhaps taking a league-wide average ypc as the drop penalty? Perhaps I should just give it up, and the penalty of ypc for each individual receiver is a good idea?

[Warhammer]

I think it would be best to look at the league wide average YPC and base it from there. Receivers that take short routes are less efficient than those that get big chunks of yardage, all else being equal (which we know it isn't but you get the point).

[Buzzbee]

However, in that 33% figure, you are assuming that a lot of things can go wrong in a long pass -- including lots of things that have nothing to do with the receiver dropping the ball (longer pass = more chance for errant placement).

Hmm... but this begs a question, to me.


Do we think that a "drop" in the game is basically a play that survived all the calculations (dice rolling) up to the point of a reception, but then just failed that final test? That's essentially what I've been thinking... the receiver is "open" enough to get the pass thrown his way, the QB delivers the pass, the defender is not able to break it up, and then the receiver has to make the catch... but fails. is that how we think all this is calculated? (I assume so, but if it's otherwise, we might have a logical flaw in some of these calculations)
Considering this last paragraph, it made me stop and think a little bit. It seems that the number of targets is included in most efficiency formulas that have been presented. It certainly seems that it is something that should be. However, when thinking about QS's last paragraph, is this the case?

Think about it. A receiver is targeted, but there are so many factors that come into play before the receiver even gets the opportunity to catch the ball. The QB could be hurried in to a bad throw, the quarterback could over or underthrow the reciever, or the defender could defend the pass. I would venture to say that a good reciever that has a bad QB delivering the ball or a bad OL blocking for the QB will have a much lower catch to target ratio, through not fault of his own. I don't know that you can take targets out of the equation, but it seems like there should be some accounting for bad throws by the QB and hurries allowed by the OL. You would probably have to do this on a team by team basis.

In regard to the formula, I'm no mathmetician so I'll leave the nuts and bolts to others. I would imagine that if you took into account the total number of team targets (I think I've seen that mentioned in a couple of suggestions) you could also subtract out the team Hurries and team Bad Throws. If you didn't then you might develop a ratio of how many of the total targets were hurried or were bad throws.

Just tossin' in my two pennies.

[slingblade73]

I keep it pretty simple in evaluations, who produces and who doesnt. So far the cheap, solid WR's have done me good on a bad SF team.