The Weekly Gut Check - Vol. 126
New Crank?
7/17/08

The “Gut Feeling” is often synonymous with a sense of desperation resulting from a lack of preparation. The Gut Check is a huge proponent of studying the numbers, but there’s a point where one can place too much emphasis on the wrong information. This can result in the undervaluing or overlooking a player’s potential. Therefore, The Weekly Gut Check is devoted to examining the frame of reference behind certain number-driven guidelines that fantasy football owners use to make decisions.

Although The Weekly Gut Check doesn’t claim to be psychic, he does believe that he can dispel certain numbers biases and help you make the best choices for your team. We’ll keep a running tally of The Weekly Gut Check’s insights. This way you can gauge his views as something to seriously consider, or at least seriously consider running the opposite way as fast as you can!

What I developed is indeed easier on the eye and it is a truer form of measuring consistency for starter quality performances at its most basic level. It differs from the original Crank Score in a few ways:

• Missed games due to injury are factored into the New Crank Score.
  
• Elite and #1 quality games are no longer given more weight.
  
• Fantasy points per game average no longer dominate the formula.
  
• The New Crank Score has a maximum number at each position.

Let’s flesh out each point in more detail before providing example scores from 2007 with the new formula.

Injuries Matter

If you are simply trying to determine which players have the most consistent performances whenever they take the field, injuries don’t matter. Factoring out injuries yields a consistency measurement in its purest form. But I want a more refined number. Ronnie Brown was one of the top four most consistent runners in 2007 according to the old Crank Score. The problem is Brown only played seven games last year. If you couldn’t find a back even remotely close to his production (odds were against you that you did) then you were out of luck for the remaining eight weeks when it came to your fantasy team. I’m measuring consistency for performance that already happened therefore injury should be a factor if I want a true reflection of a player’s impact. It’s just like the SAT; you get points for putting your name on the form and demonstrating you showed up.

All Tiers Are Considered Equal

The original Crank Score placed more positive weight on #1 Games and more negative weight on Sub Par Games. When measuring a position such as quarterback or tight end where most leagues only use one of each in a starting lineup, a significant emphasis on #1 Games is fine. But I wondered if it should be overstated when measuring a running back or a wide receiver when most leagues have between two and four of each in their starting lineups.

Go Lighter On The Fantasy Points, Will Ya?

The tiers are already created with fantasy points as a factor, because each is based on a minimum amount of fantasy points scored. In fact the minimums are adjusted automatically for the league type. Creating a formula that incorporates fantasy points to a further degree might add too much weight to average points per game. We’re looking for consistent scoring within a desired tier. Adrian Peterson might have had 40-point games, but he missed two contests and had some rough outings. If you put him head to head against a back with a significantly lower points per game average but greater consistency, the other running back would win the one on one match up more often in a 16-game stretch.

Exhibit A? Let’s use Adrian Peterson and his 17.1 fantasy point per game average versus Willis McGahee and his 12.8 fantasy point per game average.

One can argue if the Peterson owner had more consistently productive players around his RB then the Vikings RB’s numbers would enhance the team without hurting it too greatly. But one player’s sub par effort is often the deciding factor between a win and a loss between two competitive teams in a fantasy league, especially from an RB averaging 17 points per game.

Who would have thought a 4.3-point per game difference wouldn’t matter for Peterson when facing a more consistent, but lower scoring back like McGahee. Could there be something to this?

The New Crank Score Has A Maximum Number At Each Position

A player can actually attain a perfect score at his position. The New Crank Score is essentially the sum of all the positive consistency categories minus the Sub Par category. For a typical lineup, here are the maximum New Crank Scores by position. The numbers under each category indicate the number of games performed at that level of productivity.

The issue I have with this method of calculating the Crank Score is one cannot cleanly apply the single number across all positions. The maximum score for each position is different. But it does naturally show that the positions with the higher maximum Crank Score naturally have more value for a starting lineup. So in this respect, if one were to attempt to project a Crank Score he would first determine the maximum point total for each position and create tiers for each position based on the average values for each position in previous seasons.

How Is New Crank Calculated?

The basics remain the same; the only thing that changes is how the tiers are calculated to produce a single score.

New Crank = (Sum of Elite Games + Sum of #1 Games + Sum of #2 Games)-Sum of Sub Par Games

If it’s a position in a league where there is only one starter at that position in the lineup, then the formula only uses Elite and #1 Games when adding the positive categories. If there are four receivers in a starting lineup, then the positive categories include #3 Games and #4 Games. You get the idea.

Runners

Here is the New Crank for the top 48 RBs in 2007. There are some notable differences from the Old Crank Score (the original ranking is the number to the left of each player’s name). The second set of Elite, #1, #2, and Sub Par columns are the actual number of games where the runner scored enough fantasy points to qualify for each category. These are used to create the New Crank.

Willis McGahee’s score flies off the board and slaps onlookers in the face. The key number for McGahee is his 86.67% rate of starter level performances, which only LT and Westbrook exceeded last year. McGahee is getting selected in the range of the 12th and 20th overall among backs in Mock Draft Central’s 118 qualifying mocks from 6/28-7/5. His average draft position is 15th overall and the 12th at his position. For what it’s worth, McGahee was a great in-season, #2 RB because there were only two other backs who could be counted on more to deliver a starter worthy performance were the best of the best. If you can land players with this level of consistency for your starting lineup your team may lack flash, but they will be hard to beat.

Clinton Portis (7th), Earnest Graham (8th), and Steven Jackson (9th) all come out looking better with New Crank. Portis is slightly undervalued in mock drafts, but that’s been the case for the Redskin runner last year. Graham is a good draft day bargain in 2008 because he is going 18th among backs in the same Mock Draft Central report I discussed earlier with McGahee. If you aren’t risk averse and the “Kevin Jones eyeing the Bucs” story remains merely a story, then Graham is a good reason why you consider picking a receiver in the first or second round and follow up with either McGahee or Graham in rounds two or three. Jackson coming in 9th after his injury-riddled year demonstrates why fantasy owners are expecting a rebound for the Rams runner.

The same can be said about Frank Gore, who is going 7th among RBs. Owners are ignoring the fact that Gore had a disappointing season and believe Martz will help Gore produce more like Marshall Faulk. Ryan Grant is a runner many owners are still figuring out where he’s best drafted. When one looks at his last 8 starts, Grant’s consistency made him a top eight runner. But the Packer is going anywhere from 9th to 18th among backs in mock drafts. I like him at the turn of the first and second round.

Injury is obviously the factor it deserves to be in this ranking. Clinton Portis gets higher marks due to playing all 16 games. Brandon Jacobs remained starter-worthy, but if he had played three or four more games and produced at the same rate, he might have been among the five most consistent backs in 2007. The original Crank Score ranks him seventh; the new Crank ranks him 10th; and mock drafters are selecting him 14th, which is likely due to Ahmad Bradshaw’s performance in the playoffs. Ronnie Brown may have been ranked third under the original Crank Score, but with injuries factored into the equation of the new Crank Brown drops to 18th, which is slightly lower than his current ADP of 15th.

Interestingly enough Larry Johnson and Derrick Ward, who respectively played eight games, are still seen as more consistent than Willie Parker, who had 15 starts. The Steelers offensive line has come under fire after a disappointing 2007, but the organization also selected Rashard Mendenhall in the first round, a power runner who Pittsburgh likely believes is a better fit for their offensive philosophy.

Maurice Jones Drew got some early second round love by owners in some mocks I have done recently, but the presence of Fred Taylor really cut into his production. MJD is capable of becoming a great fantasy runner, but until Jacksonville accepts the fact they can ride him like Philly rides Westbrook, the UCLA alum comes with a fantasy owner advisory.

Wide Receivers