October 9, 2015 - by Seth Trachtman
After a disappointing Week 3, I entered more low risk 50/50 and double up contests in Week 4 with my TRFC lineup. In total, I entered the TRFC contest (a double up), two 50/50s, one additional double up, and one tournament.
Judging by the 50/50 results, I finished somewhere around the 45th percentile. Not horrible, but certainly not good enough, as it was a full loss of entry fees this past week.
After four weeks, I’m now up $152 on $206 in contest entry fees so far, and have pocketed 5 finals tickets that could win me more cash later in the season.
Week | Contests Entered | Entry Fees | Prize Winnings | Net Gain/Loss | Finals Tickets Won |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 5 | $32 | $327 | $295 | 4 |
2 | 9 | $82 | $0 | ($82) | 0 |
3 | 5 | $45 | $29 | ($16) | 1 |
4 | 5 | $45 | $0 | ($45) | 0 |
Total | 24 | $206 | $356 | $152 | 5 |
Last week I reviewed the position-by-position correlation between ownership percentages and FanDuel fantasy points scored in 2014. The takeaway was that in general, FanDuel users appear best at picking running backs and wide receivers, but the correlation across the board wasn’t particularly strong.
However, I decided to go one step further in this player ownership percentage analysis, especially on the heels of this week’s news explosion regarding leaked player ownership percentages.
Whether there’s an advantage to having early information on player ownership is a debate for another time. What I’m trying to investigate here is simply this: Do the players with the highest ownership percentages also score the most points?
To accomplish this goal, I analyzed ownership percentiles week-by-week for all 17 weeks of the 2014 regular season. I compared these ownership percentiles both to “FanDuel points scored” percentiles, and to “FanDuel points scored per $1000 spent on salary” percentiles.
Before I get to the data, it’s important to note that these ownership percentages encompass all FanDuel entries, across all types of contests, but it’s likely the case that:
The results are in the tables below. Key:
QB Ownership Percentiles & Performance
Popularity Percentile | Points Percentile | Points/$ Percentile |
---|---|---|
100 | 65.32 | 54.57 |
90-99 | 60.58 | 53.12 |
80-89 | 61.88 | 57.09 |
70-79 | 57.83 | 51.99 |
60-69 | 60.06 | 54.91 |
50-59 | 51.99 | 55.42 |
40-49 | 60.27 | 63.35 |
30-39 | 46.38 | 50.12 |
20-29 | 47.57 | 51.46 |
10-19 | 47.88 | 55.27 |
1-9 | 15.15 | 19.33 |
0 | 11.23 | 14.72 |
RB Ownership Percentiles & Performance
Entries Percentile | Points Percentile | Points/$ Percentile |
---|---|---|
100 | 84.09 | 68.49 |
90-99 | 80.41 | 75.31 |
80-89 | 76.23 | 72.26 |
70-79 | 62.54 | 59.66 |
60-69 | 58.22 | 57.98 |
50-59 | 50.02 | 50.86 |
40-49 | 42.94 | 45.55 |
30-39 | 41.64 | 45.98 |
20-29 | 31.81 | 36.88 |
10-19 | 32.65 | 34.83 |
1-9 | 26.93 | 29.83 |
0 | 24.19 | 27.87 |
WR Ownership Percentiles & Performance
Popularity Percentile | Points Percentile | Points/$ Percentile |
---|---|---|
100 | 89.87 | 87.83 |
90-99 | 80.65 | 75.77 |
80-89 | 71.92 | 68.36 |
70-79 | 66.25 | 63.40 |
60-69 | 58.73 | 58.27 |
50-59 | 54.55 | 55.54 |
40-49 | 47.53 | 49.48 |
30-39 | 34.71 | 37.50 |
20-29 | 31.19 | 34.28 |
10-19 | 24.82 | 27.70 |
1-9 | 17.39 | 19.41 |
0 | 12.11 | 13.65 |
TE Ownership Percentiles & Performance
Popularity Percentile | Points Percentile | Points/$ Percentile |
---|---|---|
100 | 75.94 | 68.60 |
90-99 | 72.56 | 68.82 |
80-89 | 66.92 | 64.46 |
70-79 | 65.29 | 64.32 |
60-69 | 54.24 | 54.61 |
50-59 | 43.38 | 44.38 |
40-49 | 46.25 | 47.97 |
30-39 | 40.93 | 42.71 |
20-29 | 34.46 | 36.34 |
10-19 | 36.96 | 38.87 |
1-9 | 28.26 | 30.11 |
0 | 31.04 | 33.04 |
Based on this data, it looks like the crowd has limited skill in picking quarterbacks, are better at picking tight ends, and very good at picking running backs and wide receivers.
The 80th percentile of points scored last season at RB was 11.7 points. For WR, the 80th percentile was 12.3 points. Totals like these will give you a solid chance to win in 50/50 and double up contests, but certainly don’t guarantee anything. Given the usual higher roster point totals needed to win tournaments, you shouldn’t be afraid to go against the crowd and pick less popular players in those contests if you feel they’re good values.
Considering the weak correlation of defenses and kickers to points scored, I omitted those positions from the analysis.
With four weeks gone by and more 2015 data to review, I’m continuing to emphasize matchups and fantasy points allowed vs. position in my lineup strategy. Still, I continue to take into account the Vegas-implied point totals.
To review my normal strategy:
The highest Vegas-implied point totals this week include:
Team | Vegas Implied Points |
---|---|
New England (@ DAL) | 29.0 |
Atlanta (vs. WAS) | 27.8 |
Kansas City (vs. CHI) | 27.5 |
Philadelphia (vs. NO) | 27.2 |
Baltimore (vs. CLE) | 24.8 |
The lowest Vegas-implied point totals include:
Team | Vegas Implied Points |
---|---|
Chicago (@ KC) | 17.5 |
Cleveland (@ BAL) | 18.2 |
San Francisco (@ NYG) | 18.2 |
Oakland (vs. DEN) | 19.5 |
Jacksonvile (@ TB) | 19.8 |
Here’s my lineup for Week 5:
Some notes on the lineup, which includes both objective and subjective analysis:
That’s my lineup for Week 5. Don’t forget to compete against me in this week’s TRFC contest!
Printed from TeamRankings.com - © 2005-2024 Team Rankings, LLC. All Rights Reserved.