The Crank Score is now entering its third year of existence. If you don’t have time to immediately read through the links above, The Gut Check will give you a brief summary of the concept. The Crank Score was designed to give fantasy owners a number that rates each player’s productivity in leagues where head to head competition determines its champion.

When you really examine the known draft strategies you’ll find they are set up to project players that will score the most total fantasy points over the course of a season. These are great strategies for total points leagues where the champion has to simply outscore every team over a 16 game period without regard to win-loss record. But most leagues don’t use this style of play.

An issue that can occur even if you project players accurately is to field a team with one of the top scoring totals in your league, but you produce a mediocre win-loss record that has you limping into the playoffs if not missing them altogether. The Crank Score can be used to historically measure or project the likelihood a player will score a minimum number of desired points on a weekly basis for your league. The score combines fantasy points per game and the percentage of time a player produces like an elite (top 2 at their position), #1 (top tier starter), #2 (2nd tier starter), or sub par performer (lower than the last player ranked to qualify as a starter for that week) on a weekly, seasonal, or multi-seasonal basis.

Crank Scores are a way of ranking the consistency of the player (Crank = Consistency-Rank), meeting or exceeding a desired set of goals. This should not be confused with standard deviation. Standard deviation measures how close a performance meets a goal. In fantasy football, we want players that we know will at least score “x” points per game OR more. The problem with other draft strategies in head-to-head leagues is you can have a player that explodes for 4 games at various points of the year, but has really bad games for another 4-6 games. This is why it’s possible to have a team of high scorers but more losses than you would expect from a high season point total.

You can either use Crank Scores as a deciding factor to place your projected players in to tiers or combine Crank with the best aspects of Value Based Drafting or Average Value Theory. You can also use Crank Scores as a standalone option. The Gut Check will experiment with all three uses this year.

Crank Scores is still a developing concept, but it is successful. The Gut Check published consistency scores in its raw form two years ago, but didn’t develop the Crank formula until last year. The Gut Check only had two drafts where he could use his Crank Score projections. The first draft was an auction league, which The Gut Check won. Although the roster was radically altered for a late-season championship game, the league-best 12-2 record was the result of a high risk/reward auction strategy, and the Crank Score. The second was a re-draft where The Gut Check placed 3rd, losing to the eventual champion in a close semi-final. Once yours truly does the projections, he’s excited about applying these scores to more drafts in 2006.

The scores The Gut Check is about to review are based on 2005 weekly statistics. The scoring system is .1 points per yard rushing and receiving, .05 points per yard receiving, 6 points per rushing and receiving touchdowns, and 4 points per passing touchdown. This is just a decimal based system for 1 point per 10-yard/1 point per 20-yard leagues.

The table includes the 2004 Crank Score and the +/- percentage change from 2004-2005. Anything highlighted in blue represents at least a 20% increase in Crank Score and red highlight indicates at least a 20% decrease. Before running the numbers, the Gut Check figured the quarterbacks with injuries would have the greatest changes for the negative, but Daunte Culpepper was the only one. The Gut Check attributes this significant drop off to the former Vikings’ starter playing on a bad knee before he blew it out as well as the loss of Randy Moss something yours truly predicted to a lesser extent in an article last year.

Speaking of that article, The Gut Check also believed Peyton Manning would defy the trend of record-setting producers experiencing a drop off the following year. While Manning still finished in the top 5 consistently high-producing QBs for 2005, neither he nor Culpepper were the dominant fantasy signal callers of 2004—making Manning significantly over valued in most drafts. Lesson learned: projecting career numbers out of a player, especially the year after, is a risky proposition.

But back to the injury-riddled quarterbacks of 2005. McNabb, Bulger, and Leftwich had Crank scores consistent with their previous season. If McNabb and Bulger can remain healthy, they are great value to a discerning owner. We’ll see exactly why this is the case when we examine the Crank Scores over a 3-year period.

As players that played all of 2004-2005, Palmer and Brady had the greatest rates of increase. Both are passers coming into their own, and should be among the best fantasy quarterbacks for at least the next 2-3 years. In 2004 Warner and Bledsoe were the odd men out that were anointed the starter for their new squads in 2005. This was a big reason both saw a gain in their Crank Score, but Warner was a stud for 50% of his games—very promising for fantasy owners of Cardinal skill players in 2006. Eli Manning made significant strides as a second year player, a typical increase at this stage of a starting QBs career and something The Gut Check will discuss in greater detail in Part III of this series.

Matt Hasselbeck is a favorite of many fantasy owners. If you exclude the passers on the list that didn’t play at least 14 games, the Seattle quarterback ranked 7th in Crank score. Not bad for a player many believe is still on the rise. Yet, The Gut Check doesn’t feel you should exclude injured players from the list just yet. One should make a better determination of what is a risk adverse injury history before striking players from consideration as fantasy starters.

This is where the historical Crank Scores over a three-season period may add more perspective.

Culpepper, Bulger, and McNabb are three of the top four quarterbacks by Crank Score from 2003-2005. All three missed more than 15% of their starts, but for very different reasons. Culpepper has been pretty durable up to 2005, but should be considered the highest injury risk of the three this year. If he returns to pre-injury form in 2006—as quickly as some dare to suggest—it will be one of the NFL’s stories of the year. When selecting his first quarterback in a fantasy draft, the Gut Check would prefer a player of Hasselbeck’s caliber to a rehabbing Culpepper in 2006. Unless the media and fantasy owners get carried away with the hype of how he’s looking, the new Miami starter should be available long after the Seattle quarterback—which is currently the case in serious mock drafts at AntSports.

Bulger has experienced several lesser injuries throughout his career and has the biggest reputation for being a brittle player. But his productivity as a quality starter week in and week out far exceeds Hasselbeck (75.68% #1 QB consistency rating vs. 47.83%). Currently, the two quarterbacks have a difference in average draft position just a pick apart—Hasselbeck is going at 5.10 and Bulger at 5.11. Personally, the Gut Check would rather have Bulger and get Bledsoe just before round eight (ADP 8.02).

McNabb has been excellent with or without T.O. He should be fully recovered from his injuries and playing with a team with better chemistry now that Owens is a Dallas Cowboy. He’s a player The Gut Check would also select over Hasselbeck, although it is more a matter of personal preference than absolute confidence that he’ll outperform the Seahawk starter.

Michael Vick appeared to improve his ranking, but his Crank Score is very similar to previous years. It is the same thing with Plummer’s rank dropping in 2005, but to put it in better perspective, he has been a top 10 QB for the total of three seasons. In fact Crank Scores for the last three years might be used effectively as values for fantasy owners to plug in players—a variation on the Average Value Theory. We’ll discuss this further in Part III.

*The players with a percentage change in Crank Score from ’04 to ’05 marked in bold were backs that either didn’t play in ’04 but the change is representative of their production versus the previous runner’s production in that offense.

No surprises with the top five here, but is a surprise to see Lamont Jordan, Domanick Davis, and Corey Dillon round out the top ten. Jordan was a player many touted as a breakout back and he didn’t disappoint. Davis has always been high on the Crank Score list because when he plays, he produces like a solid first round pick. His slow recovery from knee surgery is a concern at this point. Corey Dillon is the least-regarded of the three runners, but the Gut Check believes will be a potential #1 RB selected in a round commensurate with a #2 or #3 RB. Despite playing on a bad leg, Dillon gutted out 12 games and his skills in the red zone helped him be a #1 RB for 75% of his games in standard scoring leagues—only Alexander, James, and Barber had a higher percentage of #1 RB-quality performances in 2005. A healthy Dillon is still good enough to keep the talented rookie Maroney in the paddock for this year, or at least reduce Maroney to a lesser contributing role.

Clearly the best back was Shaun Alexander, but there are some interesting points about the other elite backs on this list. Larry Johnson’s effort would have likely met or exceeded Alexander’s if not for starting the season as Priest Holmes’ backup. It’s no surprise Johnson is viewed in many circles as the first overall pick in 2006 fantasy drafts. Although Edgerrin James scored a point less per game than Ladanian Tomlinson, the Colts starter was the more consistent player. LT had 1 more elite game than James, but was about 20% more likely to perform like a starting RB than the Charger’s superstar.

This point is a perfect example why the more consistent performance should be factored into draft day decisions—Tomlinson scored 303.2 points to James’ 268.35. If you look at these totals as projections on a cheat sheet that uses value based drafting, Tomlinson is the clear winner. But let’s convert the Crank Score to the number of games each player produced at the desired baseline of performance:

If Ahman Green makes it back from a torn quadriceps tendon, he could be a steal if the Packers offensive line displays any level of improvement. It’s a very iffy proposition, but considering where you can draft Green, it’s worth the risk to take him this year. With Holmes likely out of the picture, the next six backs ranked after him are first round locks. The fact that Johnson is rated so highly despite seeing limited time until last season is one of the more amazing things about him as a fantasy runner.

The Gut Check participated in a mock draft for a draft publication and was asked about his receivers—specifically why he chose Joey Galloway and T.J. Houshmandzadeh. Considering they were the ninth and twelfth-rated receivers last year and were sitting there after other teams went with players like Santana Moss, Hines Ward, Randy Moss, and Reggie Wayne, yours truly thinks he got a bargain—especially when one of them will always be paired in a lineup with Larry Fitzgerald. As hard as it is to believe, in a two-receiver lineup Joey Galloway was a better player to have than Santana Moss! Let’s break it down:

The receiver most likely to carry a fantasy team at the position last year wasn’t Torry Holt, Santana Moss, or Steve Smith, but none other than 2nd year receiver Larry Fitzgerald. Although three other receivers were more likely to produce like a #1 WR, Fitzgerald had more elite games than any receiver in the NFL last year. His Crank Scores and the addition of Edgerrin James are two reasons why the Gut Check believes “Late Night Larry” will be the top fantasy receiver in 2006.

If you are looking for the most likely candidates to have a rebound year in 2006, look at the top of the list with Terrell Owens. Randy Moss, Joe Horn, and Derrick Mason are also good choices. Moss needs to stay healthy—something he hasn’t done in consecutive years as of late. Horn’s health isn’t as big of a question as his new quarterback. If Brees is ready, these are two savvy players that should connect often. And speaking of connections, Mason should creep back into the top 12 with McNair in Baltimore.

Next week, the Gut Check will apply Crank Scores to the increasingly popular, point per reception leagues.