By hammering the running back position in recent weeks, we’ve discussed both the importance of opportunity and volume at the position but kept in mind the value of efficiency when targeting big plays in NFL DFS.
Rostering complementary running backs rather than their workhorse counterparts could be a profitable strategy in tournaments, but is the same also true for wide receivers? For yet another volume-driven position, targets in DFS are the most predictive week-to-week statistic at the wide receiver position.
Is paying up for the WR1 in an offense worth it in both cash games and GPPs, or is there value to be had from a team’s WR2 and complementary options?
If we don’t know what typical WR1s get on a per-week basis, we could easily be ignoring value. So, on a per-game basis, how many opportunities (targets) does a WR1 truly get in comparison to his WR2 and complementary options?
To answer this question, I started by filtering out wide receivers with at least one target in 2015 to help eliminate injuries and outliers.
I was left with a sample size of 1,181 DraftKings players. From there I categorized a WR1 as the highest salary at the position and the next highest was categorized as the WR2. For the purpose of this study the remaining player(s), if any from the same game, were considered ‘complementary’ as long as they were above minimum salary and hit the same one-target threshold.
Raw Average Production
The following chart displays the average stat lines from 513 WR1s, 460 WR2s, and 208 complementary wide receivers from the 2015 NFL season.
A team’s WR1 on average saw 2.68 more targets per game than the WR2 and 3.6 more targets than complementary WR(s).
What stands out right away is the fact that the WR1 accumulated roughly 24 more yards per game than the WR2. For wide receivers, reception yards accounted for a higher percentage of total points than receptions, but both statistics accounted for more than touchdowns and the 100-yard bonus combined.
On DraftKings, a team’s WR1 was more efficient on a per-target basis and saw significantly more targets per game, as well. Intuitively, from a volume perspective a team’s WR1 is 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 the Most Value?
To maximize our floor in both cash games and tournaments, we often rely on receivers who will see a lot of targets, and in turn gain a lot of yards. Wide receivers have high ceilings each week, which is why we also tend to deploy them in the flex position more often than running backs in tournaments.
We can build upside into our lineups by paying up at wide receiver — ideally for multiple WR1s, because most weeks we can find a high-floor play at both quarterback and running back. A lot of times this upside is built purely on projected volume just like at running back, but at the wide receiver position high-end ability matters.
The following chart compares the average salary, DraftKings points, dollar per point, and dollar per target of a team’s WR1, WR2, and complementary WR(s).
Unsurprisingly, a team’s WR1 was clearly the best value on DraftKings.
I accept that this may not always be the case for all teams; it is important to realize that every situation is unique. Of course, there are not three DFS viable players at wide receiver on EVERY team. However, in situations without a clear elite option like Odell Beckham Jr. or Julio Jones, a lot of value can be gained by looking into how DraftKings prices players. The best example of this can be found using the same raw average production and our Trends tool by taking a look at the Arizona Cardinals’ embarrassment of riches at wide receiver in 2015:
In 2015, Larry Fitzgerald’s average salary was $6,900 on DraftKings, whereas John Brown and Michael Floyd were $5,000 and $4,000, respectively. Fitzgerald was given a much higher target volume on a per-game basis than either Brown or Floyd. However, Fitzgerald faded down the stretch and Brown was far and away the best dollar-per-point value over the entire season.
Intuitively, it makes sense that Fitzgerald saw more targets per dollar than either Brown or Floyd; he caught a ton of passes underneath and in the slot last year through short-to-intermediate routes.
Brown and Floyd both outperformed Fitzgerald on a dollar-per-point basis, but this could be largely due to Fitzgerald fading down the stretch and Floyd exploding late at a low salary. This explains why Floyd also leads the way in regards to our signature Plus/Minus metric here at FantasyLabs. Surprisingly enough, Brown was the most Consistent wide receiver for the Cardinals in 2015.
Specifically, Where Are the Points Coming From?
So now we know the value of a WR1, but what types of receivers should we target if we can’t fit in a high-priced option into our lineups?
We saw in the first two charts that, despite less targets per game, complementary WRs actually score slightly more touchdowns per game than a team’s WR2 and in turn have a more desirable dollar-per-point and dollar-per-target value. How does this make any sense?
We know that attacking players who demand a high volume of targets 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 a team’s WR1, WR2, and complementary WR(s).
It’s possible this is to blame for the question above. Touchdowns are a statistic with significant variance, of course, but it is noteworthy that they represent a higher percentage of total DraftKings points for complementary WRs than a team’s WR1 and WR2. Perhaps complementary WR(s) even offer more upside than a team’s WR2 in tournaments for this very reason? They clearly allow more flexibility during lineup construction, which is a huge positive in itself.
Conclusion
Paying up for at least one WR1 in your lineup may be the most profitable strategy. As the data shows, not only has a team’s WR1 generally been more efficient, but they have also cost far less per point and per target in regards to salary. Also, in the right situation, it seems cheaper complementary WR(s) can have more ‘upside’ than a higher-priced, higher-owned WR2.
