In recent weeks we’ve discussed the importance of opportunity and volume in NFL DFS, especially at the running back position. I talked about the value of efficiency when targeting big plays in DFS last week, but let’s assume for a minute that volume is still our top priority.
The shift to more of a pass-friendly league has made it easier than ever in today’s NFL to find volume, as offensive coordinators have dealt with the fragility of the position with added depth and defined roles. But doesn’t this mean that there are fewer true workhorses realistically capable of winning a week for you?
The difference in touches for starters and complementary backs has severely diminished in recent years, but what exactly does this mean for DFS?
If we don’t know what typical lead backs get on a per-week basis, we’re flying blind. So, on a per-game basis, how many opportunities (carries and targets) does a lead back truly get in comparison to complementary backs?
To answer this question I decided the 2015 season was most relevant, as most of the play-callers are still in place. I started by filtering out all running backs in games without 10 or more cumulative rush attempts and targets.
I was left with a sample size of 662 DraftKings players. From there I categorized a ‘starter’ as the highest salary at the position. The remaining player(s) from the same game were considered ‘complementary’ backs for the purpose of this study.
Raw Average Production
The following chart displays the average stat lines from 493 starters and 169 complementary running backs from the 2015 NFL season.
What stands out right away is the fact that starting running backs on average saw just 5.25 more cumulative attempts and targets per game than complementary running backs.
On DraftKings, complementary backs were slightly more efficient on a per-touch basis and saw slightly more targets per game as well. Intuitively, from a volume perspective starting running backs are clearly the better option in DFS, but what about from a value and points-per-dollar perspective? That is what actually matters when building lineups in a salary-cap league, after all.
Who Provides More Value?
Wide receivers have high ceilings each week, which is why we tend to deploy them in the flex position more often than running backs in tournaments. To be able to fit in as many top options as possible at wide receiver, running back is often a spot where we can find value at lower price points based purely on projected volume.
The following chart compares the average salary, DraftKings points, and dollar per point of starters versus complementary backs.
Surprisingly, complementary running backs were actually better values on DraftKings than starters.
Of course this wasn’t the case in every backfield. However, in clear committee situations without a clear ‘elite option,’ oftentimes the cheaper player proved a better overall value on DraftKings. The best example of this can be found using our Trends tool by taking a look at a popular committee situation in Cincinnati:
In 2015, Jeremy Hill’s average salary was $5,500 on DraftKings, whereas Giovani Bernard’s was just $4,560. Hill slightly edged Bernard on cumulative attempts and targets (223 versus 206, respectively) but was consistently the “starter” in regards to this study. As you can see, the ‘complementary’ player, Bernard, was a far better play last year in regards to our signature Plus/Minus metric here at FantasyLabs.
Specifically, Where Are the Points Coming From?
So now we know that we can definitely find value in committee situations. But there’s another problem: What types of committee members should we target and should it be exclusively pass-catching specialists?
We saw in the first chart that despite 5.25 less combined attempts and targets per game, complementary backs actually averaged 0.11 more targets per game than starters.
We know that targeting pass-catching running backs on DraftKings — because of their PPR scoring — can increase both our ceiling and floor. The following chart displays the percentage of total DraftKings points that went to each scoring category for starters and complementary running backs.
Complementary backs saw roughly 10 percent more of their fantasy production come from the passing game than starters. Aside from that, it is clear that even complementary backs rely mostly on rushing yards for fantasy points. Thus, if targeting complementary backs, we should look for players like Giovani Bernard, who get carries and targets in the passing game.
Conclusion
As NFL DFS grows, finding an edge by identifying and rostering complementary running backs rather than their bigger-name — and more expensive — workhorse counterparts could be a profitable strategy in tournaments.
As the data shows, not only have complementary running backs generally been more efficient, but they have also cost far less per touch in regards to salary. Further, they averaged more receptions, an important data point considering DraftKings’ PPR scoring. In the right situation, a cheaper complementary back can have more ‘value’ than a higher-priced starter who is losing touches in clear committee situations.
