The Receiver Rundown: Volume Dependency
If you haven’t noticed, I’ve been a bit obsessed with pass catchers recently. Yet even given this recent predilection, there’s always more work to be done. As such, I’m happy to present another venture centered around the art of catching the ball in the form of this three-part series which I’ve entitled “The Receiver Rundown.”
In this next-level foray into the NFL’s wideouts, I hope to examine multiple aspects of receiver production. These studies will go beyond raw statistics, digging deeper into what specifically makes these players fantasy viable. Ultimately, I hope to provide a new and unique perspective predicated upon thorough data mining.
The first part of this series will focus on what I perceive to be the “myth” of volume dependency. While sometimes there is a linear relationship between volume (defined as the number of targets) and fantasy production (and additionally a prevailing belief that efficiency decreases with volume), correlation does not always imply causation. Put more simply, receiving a heavy dose of targets is not necessarily the reason why certain receivers are successful.
As such, we need a better way to determine a receiver’s reliance on being peppered with passes. Fortunately, I believe the AIR metric I’ve previously designed and utilized can do just that. While this quantifier has been used previously as a general assessment for certain receiver groupings (the PPR top-12 and the 2013 rookie pass catchers), I believe it can also adequately summarize whether the league’s most targeted receivers actually needed said volume.
For a brief reminder, the AIR metric essentially summarizes how well a pass catcher plays within the scope of his own offense. This eliminates the variances amongst the league’s 32 teams, and provides a ratio that can be compared on both an intra- and inter-squad level. This ratio can be calculated by dividing the percentage of the receiver’s PPR points (relative to the entirety of the passing offense; does not include points from rushing) by his percentage of the team’s total targets – a resultant ratio of 1.00 represents expected production, while an AIR greater than or less than 1.00 shows deviant production above or below what was expected, respectively.
To enact this study I chose to use a dataset comprised of the league’s 25 most targeted receivers. In addition to being a nice, round number the drop-off between the 25th most targeted receiver (Victor Cruz – 123 targets) and 26th most targeted receiver (Emmanuel Sanders – 112 targets) represented a distinct cutoff point. The AIR metric will be applied to all 25 players, and they will subsequently be sorted in terms of descending volume dependency.
Let’s get started!
[am4show have=’p2;p3;p4;p5;p6;’ guest_error=’sub_message’ user_error=’sub_message’ ]
Tier One – Volume is Just a Number
One last quick note as to how the “Team Points” were calculated. To do this the aggregate of the team’s quarterback stats were converted to receiving stats using the standard scoring format – one point per reception, 0.1 points per yard and six points per touchdown. The complete rundown of every team’s output can be found in the DLF Pass Catchers Portfolio.
Getting back to the data, it should come as no surprise to see Gordon and Johnson function as the two most efficient receivers in the game. What is mildly surprising is the player holding the third and final spot in this tier – Packers receiver Jordy Nelson. We knew that Nelson provided elite output with star quarterback Aaron Rodgers at the helm, but he also produced during Rodgers’ absence. In short, all three of these players received plenty of volume, but there was no correlation between that and their fantasy production.
Tier Two – Well Above Expected Production
Given the drop-off of 0.08 between Nelson’s AIR value and Jackson’s AIR value, this seemed as good a spot as any for the first tier break. With that said, Tier Two still features a quintet of players who achieved well above expected production. What’s also important to note is this tier ran the gamut of players in elite offenses (Thomas in Denver) through players in deficient offenses (Cruz and Boldin).
Jackson leads the charge with an air value of 1.15, showing that he was no byproduct of volume (or the overall efficiency of the Philly offense). Boldin was right behind him, followed by Brown, Thomas and Cruz. What’s notable here is each player represented the most targeted receiver on his offense, but their respective outputs were once again well above any linear “cause and effect” analysis.
Tier Three – Above Expected Production
The six players above once again presented production above the scope of their volume, with AIR values spanning the range 1.06 – 1.08. Names like Bryant and Marshall are far from surprising, as each has already established themselves as an elite option. Similarly, Johnson managed to transcend the confines of a mediocre Houston passing offense, and while he had the second-most targets in the league he still elevated his market share even despite a dearth of touchdowns.
Fitzgerald is a more interesting case, as he once again failed to crack 1,000 receiving yards – however, a large touchdown ratio (one per ever 13.6 targets) helped mitigate the other deficiencies in his overall stat-line. Even while functioning as his team’s only legitimate receiver, the Bucs’ Vincent Jackson still did slightly more than what was expected. Finally, Patriots slot receiver Julian Edelman was less volume dependent than what you’d believe – call it a Wes Welker hangover, but Edelman nevertheless more than “earned” his target share.
Tier Four – Expected Production
While there’s little delineation between the top of this subset and the bottom of the tier above, we’ve now inched closer to a linear relationship between volume and fantasy output. To that point, the quintet of Garcon, Hilton, Jeffery, Smith and Decker provided little more than expected production. In the cases of Garcon, Hilton and Smith this was probably due to a lack of other options in the passing game, leading to a “force feeding” of targets. For Jeffery and Decker, there were simply better and more efficient options on the offense.
Perhaps the most surprising inclusion in this tier is the Bengals’ AJ Green. With an AIR value just a hair above 1.0 we can legitimately call him volume-dependent without any hesitation, at least for the 2013 season. While I still view him as a sublime talent, this is another data point to consider when ranking the “Big Five” receivers. DLF favorite Hartline rounded out the grouping, performing exactly as was expected in accordance with his volume.
Tier Five – Below Expected Production
None of the names on this list should surprise anyone. Wright, Douglas and Shorts functioned as over-targeted options by necessity, due to a lack of pass-catching prowess on the rest of the roster. In addition, the trio only split seven touchdowns between them, helping explain a lack of fantasy efficiency.
Wallace, meanwhile, was an unmitigated disaster in his first season as a Dolphin. Much of this can be attributed to an unimaginative offense and a lack of deep-ball chemistry with quarterback Ryan Tannehill, but at some point you can’t make any more excuses. Wallace was downright bad in 2013, and were it not for his 142 targets he wouldn’t have been on the fantasy radar.
Conclusion
By and large I think we can thoroughly debunk the myth of volume dependence as it relates to the league’s most targeted receivers. Only four of the 25 players chronicled above achieved below expected production, while 14 of the 25 achieved above expected production. Volume can certainly help, but more often than not good players can achieve fantasy viability simply for one reason – because they’re good. The volume was quite simply an added bonus.
With Part One in the books make sure you stay tuned for the next edition, which will cover the touchdown percentages of the players shown above.
Follow me on Twitter @EDH_27
[/am4show]
- Tactical Transactions: Dynasty Moves to Make Before Week 15 - December 10, 2024
- Tactical Transactions: Dynasty Moves to Make Before Week 12 - November 19, 2024
- Tactical Transactions: Dynasty Moves to Make Before Week 11 - November 12, 2024
