The Low End Theory, Part 2: Low-Total WR
When I first wrote about low-total quarterbacks, I wasn’t sure if I would continue to look at cheap players at other positions, so I didn’t give it a fancy title. I simply asked the question, “Is it OK to Roster Quarterbacks from Games with Low Vegas Totals?”
Since it developed into a series, I gave it a title. And mostly because I wanted to make my editors look up random information about early 1990s rap music, I thought of A Tribe Called Quest. So with much respect to Q-Tip, Phife Dawg, and Ali Shaheed Muhammad, I bring you The Low End Theory.
And oh sh*t, Skeff Anslem — he gets props, too.
This edition: Low-total wide receivers.
Please refer to the first installment of this series to find out why, for the purposes of this article, we’ll consider any game with a total of 46 and higher to be a ‘high-total game’ and anything played with a total of 45.5 or lower a ‘low-total game.’
What High-Total and Low-Total Wide Receivers Look Like
Per our Trends tool, wide receivers playing in games with a total of at least 46 points (high-total WRs) have traditionally produced a +0.04 Plus/Minus on DraftKings with 37.1 percent Consistency (the percentage of time a player meets or exceeds salary-based expectations).
Interestingly, although the low-total WRs have a negative Plus/Minus, a higher percentage of them from a larger sample size met or exceeded their salary-based expectations (the difference is almost negligible, however).
In our previous studies, both the low-total QBs and low-total RBs met expectations at a much lower percentage compared to their high-total counterparts.
With the baseline low-total WRs already in a thought-provoking position, let’s take a deeper look at them to see if we can uncover any actionable data for DFS purposes on DraftKings.
Make It Snappy and Feed Me
Let’s start with the obvious stuff.
Players of any position need snaps to be productive. It’s like cheeseburgers without french fries, turkey with no mashed potatoes, corned beef without the cabbage, or . . . you get the picture. One without the other is pretty useless and in some extreme cases may cause a slow death by starvation.
A low-total WR who is being fed with snaps, however, will never go hungry.
I suggest targeting low-total WRs who receive more than 40 snaps per game to give yourself the best chance of success.
The low-total WR who receives between one to 40 snaps per game more often than not hurts owners with a historical -1.66 Plus/Minus and only 27.0 percent Consistency.
On the other hand, the well-fed, low-total WR receiving at least 41 snaps per game delivers a +2.14 Plus/Minus with 51.9 percent Consistency. That’s a healthy +3.80 Plus/Minus improvement to go along with nearly 25.0 percentage points of additional Consistency.
Hit Me With Your Best Shot
What’s better than snaps? Making the snaps count.
And how does that happen? With targets.
This should go without saying, but low-total WRs who are getting low target counts seldom produce well. In fact, those receiving an average of only one to three per game provide a negative return of -1.31 Plus/Minus with only 29.3 percent Consistency.
Increase that target count to a minimum of four and the magic happens. These low-total WRs have traditionally produced a +1.81 Plus/Minus with a healthy 49.7 percent Consistency.
When it comes to targets, you can never have too many.
The more gluttonous a receiver is in terms of targets, the better. Those low-total WRs who average at least six targets per game jump the Plus/Minus up to +2.45 with a staunch 53.5 percent Consistency.
Something I found extremely interesting: Combining the minimum desired snap and target count has almost no effect on the production from snap count alone. The Plus/Minus and Consistency of the combined 41 snaps with four targets is nearly identical to receiving the 41 snaps alone.
Even more interesting: Combining the minimum snap count with the undesirable low target count produces an extremely favorable result. These low-total WRs getting minimum targets actually provide a +1.68 Plus/Minus with 51.8 percent Consistency.
Using this low-total, low-target combination could be an extremely-effective contrarian way to target WRs who should be scarcely owned in tournaments.
America Loves an Underdog
In general, low-total WRs who are playing as underdogs perform slightly better than their favored counterparts. This isn’t really the type of information that can lead us to an actionable advantage though.
I’ve heard people theorize that when teams are underdogs they’re more likely to be playing from behind and forced to throw more to catch up. Therefore, QBs and WRs playing in those situations should naturally benefit from that supposed increase in volume.
Conversely, I have found that concentrating on low-total WRs who are at least a touchdown favorite can give you that edge we’re in search of.
Using what we already have established about snaps and targets with this information reveals some really juicy stuff.
The low-total WR who is favored by at least a touchdown and playing an average of at least 41 snaps per game produces an excellent +3.50 Plus/Minus with steadfast 59.5 percent Consistency.
The low-total WR playing in the exact same position as a touchdown underdog still produces, but not with nearly as much Consistency and a loses more than a point of Plus/Minus power.
Similarly, the low-total WR favored by at least a touchdown who averages four targets per game has historically produced a +3.35 Plus/Minus with trustworthy 57.6 percent Consistency.
And as expected, the more gluttonous, the better: Increasing the target average to six per game increases the Plus/Minus to +4.51 with very reliable 64.9 percent Consistency.
As is the case with snaps, low-total WRs placed in the exact same position as touchdown underdogs still produce positive results, but lose more than a point of Plus/Minus and a big chunk of their Consistency when compared to their favored counterparts.
What a Difference a Trend Makes
Using our exclusive Pro Trends to your advantage can help you leverage the low-total WR even further.
The low-total WR with fewer than three Pro Trends performs at a level well below the baseline low-total WR in terms of both Plus/Minus and Consistency. They lose nine-tenths of a point in terms of Plus/Minus while sacrificing 5.2 percentage points of Consistency.
Increase the Pro Trends count to a minimum of three and the results above the baseline are amazing. These low-total WRs produced a +2.52 Plus/Minus with 53.6 percent Consistency.
As Notorious B.I.G. once said, “I went from negative to positive. And it’s all good.”
As you might imagine, adding our desired minimum snap count to the desired number of Pro Trends increases both our Plus/Minus and Consistency, which jumps up to 56.0 percent.
The same can be said for combining Pro Trends with at least four targets: The Plus/Minus increases to +2.81 and the Consistency rises to 55.4 percent.
Interestingly, using a minimum of 41 snaps per game as a filter has a more beneficial effect on both the Plus/Minus and Consistency when compared to using a minimum of four or even six targets per game.
Find yourself a low-total WR with a minimum of three Pro Trends who averages at least 41 snaps per game and is playing as a touchdown favorite, and you’ve found yourself a player that has historically generated a healthy +4.83 Plus/Minus with faithful 66.3 percent Consistency.
And if you’re in search of a black swan, make the above player an infrequently-targeted one and you’ve found Plus/Minus gold.
Reviewing What We Learned
There is plenty of contrarian value to be found in low-total wide receivers. Using the FantasyLabs Trends tool to find this value could be instrumental in tournament-winning roster construction.
Here are some guidelines:
— Don’t starve your wide receivers. Above all else, make sure that your low-total WR is getting targets or at least 41 snaps per game. Four or more targets is good; six or more targets is great. Combining snaps with targets doesn’t have a huge effect, but using high snap count with low targets could be an excellent way to find rewarding, low-owned tournament plays.
— In sweeping general terms, underdogs have performed slightly better than favorites, but concentrating on spreads of at least a touchdown (in either direction) is profitable work. Using players favored by at least a touchdown has been more advantageous than playing those who are touchdown underdogs.
— Use our Pro Trends. A minimum of three Pro Trends is essential when used alone. Combining Pro Trends with snaps and/or targets will help even more.
Next week: Low-total tight ends.
