How Well Did High-Ownership Players Perform for Daily Fantasy Football in 2016?
Wide Receivers
You would expect wide receivers and running backs to differ greatly in what conditions allow them to bust. After all, wide receivers can be involved in the game plan even when the team is trailing, potentially making them a more viable option on the road. In reality, that's not how things played out.
Here's the same chart that we've used with the other positions. While there are some areas where they deviate from running backs, there are also some intriguing similarities.
| Bust Rates by Classification | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Home | 34.38% |
| Road | 51.39% |
| Favored | 44.57% |
| Underdogs | 40.91% |
| Over/Under of 48 or Higher | 39.47% |
| Over/Under Below 48 | 48.33% |
| Implied Team Total of 25 or Higher | 43.42% |
| Implied Team Total Below 25 | 43.33% |
| Salary of $7,500 or Higher | 47.76% |
| Salary Below $7,500 | 39.13% |
You're playing with fire if you use high-ownership players on the road, breh.
Among the classifications with a sizable sample at any position, the two lowest bust rates came from running backs and wide receivers who were at home. Even though wide receivers had lower bust rates than running backs on the road, it was still above 50%, and that's not something we should be inclined to inherit when it comes with high ownership.
The most actionable information from Vegas seemed to be over/unders, backing up trends we saw last year in big games from wide receivers. If it's high, let 'em fly. If it's low, let 'em go.
There were 45 wide receivers at high ownership whose teams had an over/under of at least 50. Only 13 of them failed to hit baseline value, equating to just 28.89%. Over/under is a critical mark for wide receivers, and we should be fading popular plays if they come with a low mark here.
While wide receivers and running backs were similar in their home/road splits, they differed when it came to salary. Here, it was the high-priced players who were more likely to bust, complicating matters a bit.
In this sample, there were 25 wide receivers who had a salary of $6,500 or lower. Only four of them (16.00%) failed to hit baseline expectations. That's an insane rate, and while it's not a huge sample, it's big enough to snag our attention.
This should have an impact on how we handle high-ownership wide receivers. If they're cheap, then there's likely a solid reason they're popular, and we should be more willing to swallow that chalk. However, if they're expensive, we don't necessarily need to avoid them, but we should be giving it long consideration.
