I'm not certain why this is, but there isn't a great many folks looking at FF trends rather than NFL trends. Yes, I know, people have slowly placed more emphasis on RBs over the years; and yes, there are several very good theories out there like the minimal WR theory and such. Personally, I find ideas like these far more valuable than all the projections, team analysis, and VBD boards you could ever put together because they study our hobby first, and football second. Granted, you have to do your homework on all aspects of this hobby, but finding successful patterns and mimicking them is an excellent way to run your team - especially if you can figure out WHY the patterns exist and how they might change slightly from year to year.

There, that's my preface/minor gripe. Now, here's what I've started this year and will continue to do in the years to come:

I'm creating a database of auction league information. While this data is just as useful for serpentine drafts as auctions, I use auctions because every owner comes to the table capable if building whatever they choose. They cannot "miss" the RB run since they could bid on every player who comes up. So, in an auction, my theory was that if I compiled data from many leagues over several years and studied the teams who did well to see what they have in common when they auction (and study the poor teams to see what THEY have in common as well), I could see if patterns cropped up.

Now, there are all sorts of disclaimers attached to this. More than I care to recite. Let's just hit the big ones. First, I'm not going to pitch why things are - just that they are. I'll leave you to create theories as to why. Second, since I'm only looking at auction data, then how teams performed, this has no room for noticing team management through the year. While some owners are capable of improving as the year goes on, this data is simply saying "If you do X, you're more likely to have a good team". If you proceed to make poor management decisions, I can't help you. Third, the bulk of this data is from 2002. There are some 2001 leagues and one 2000 league, but there is some minor danger that this is closer to a snapshot of last year than it is to a year defying trend. As the years go by, these will even out but I wanted to mention this for cautions sake. Last, while the league rules from my compiled data vary slightly from league to league, they are similar. All leagues were performance leagues and tended to start QB/RB/RB/WR/WR/TE/PK/DT. The bulk of them gave 6 for passing TDs although about 15% only gave 4. About half started 3 WRs, the rest started 2. About half gave points for receptions, the rest gave none. No league used IDPs and DT's were similar but never exact. So, it's important for you to look at your league rules with that in mind when working through this data.
Now, on to what I actually did.

I broke all teams into three categories. A teams were the top 4 teams in their league (play-off caliber). B teams were the middle 4 teams and C teams were the last 4 teams (or Toilet Bowl caliber). I then looked at what these three categories were doing differently from each other. While some of what I found followed conventional wisdom, some did not.

Before getting to the positions, some setup data needs to be explained.

• First, I did track quantity of transactions and found absolutely no consistent correlation between how often you mess with your team to how good you do.



• Second, I will occasionally talk about consistency. Having the highest average doesn't mean anything if their isn't a trend to support that average. E.g., if C teams average the most spent at QB, yet of 20 teams surveyed, only about 33% of C teams spent the most in their league (but spent WAY too much which pulls up their average), then the stat isn't too telling. However, if their average is consistent, it means that in almost every league, C teams spent most at QB. So, for every position, I try to indicate how consistent the average is so you can separate the random from the trend.



• Last, for comparison, I took every auction league, sorted players by money spent, and looked at it as if they had drafted instead of auctioned. What I was after is to see if good teams tended to draft the same way. I'll get more into this during the positional breakdowns but:

This represents the number of draft picks A, B and C teams averaged per league. The largest number here is that 1st round A team 1.21. A teams tend to have more than one first rounder if they'd drafted; or, A teams tend to spend a sizable chunk of cash on studs. With the drop in 2nd and 3rd rounders for them, it looks like they do not fish. Note that C's are exactly the opposite. They concentrate on depth rather than studs.

QUARTERBACKS

Cap is the % of money spent on that position. For QBs, it looks pretty clear that here's one of the big mistakes for C's. They consistently had stud QBs In fact, there was not one league where the C teams didn't have the highest expenditure.

For A's and B's, consistency flipped a bit. Basically, they both lay off the studs.
Roster is the average number of roster spots filled by this position. As you can see, A's have the most. This might be some separation between the two. They seem to target the same types of QBs but A's tend to grab an extra one for that last $1 or $2.

Return is a fairly convoluted equation. Its intent is to measure return on investment. If you spent $4, did you get $4 worth of production by the end of the year? A's actually returned less that B's. This kind leads me to think that as long as you don't grab a stud, your fine. C's, largely because they spent so much, lost 4.5% return.

I want to underscore this last part a little. Not a single league's C teams averaged positive return. When you consider that Culpepper and Manning still made the top 4 at year end, you would have expected some success from the QB heavy teams since they got what they paid for. This did not happen in 2002. In fact, it was more pronounced in 2001 when I ran this same study. 4 of the top 5 QBs ended in the top 5 by years end yet this didn't tend to send their owners to the play-offs. Even getting what you pay for does not seem to help much for stud QBs

RUNNING BACKS

This data hints at why stud QBs hurt you in the long run.

The inclination here is that the more you spend at RB, the better off you are.

However, it's more precise than that.

Certainly A's averaged the most spent. But B's were not far behind and C's couldn't spend much here since many had already spent on QB studs. So, does anything separate A's and B's?

Yes. First look at the roster spots filled. A's have the fewest despite spending the most. The insinuation is that they go for studs rather than fish for potential and waste weeks figuring out which RB should be their starter.

Now, go back and look at the first chart. A's also tend to have more "first round" choices than the others. It's pretty clear that these guys are not praying Portis breaks out last year. They're grabbing Faulk, Holmes, and the like and riding them.

Considering that Return is predicated on how much you spent, it's interesting that A's STILL returned the most despite spending the most. It's also interesting that this is the trend despite the two well known adages of "The first round can't win it for you, but it can lose it for you", and "Half the first round picks are busts."

WIDE RECEIVERS

Note: Half the leagues surveyed gave points for receptions and started 3 WRs Adjust accordingly.

"A" teams spent most again. So, despite not having as many "3rd rounders", A's first three picks are often some combination of RB/RB/WR if they had been drafting rather than auctioning.

The last column, "Lite Cap" is the same Cap average, except it takes out the points for receptions leagues. Welcome to the adage "Know your league rules".
So, in WR heavy leagues, spearing a WR stud is just as valid a tactic as spearing a RB. It looks as though a WR stud theory can work here if you don't completely ignore the RBs

In WR weak leagues, let the others bite on the big boys and wait for value.
I like noticing that C's fall in the roster position column. Despite spending a fair amount for few WRs (and thus never having to choose who you start every week), they still return the worst. While the A's and B's do more of a scattershot approach and it seems to pay off for them.

Also note that B's return the most. It's not by much, but it's enough to say that WRs are important, but might not be critical. There looks to be very little difference between A's and B's here despite the numbers. It's likely that Return is higher for B's because they spent less. So, despite A's trending to spend more, it MIGHT be a better idea to emulate B's in this instance.

TIGHT ENDS

I tried to think of something poignant to say about this one. Instead, I'll just say don't grab a loser. There is no consistency, there is no pattern, but C's TE's tank much like you would expect Toilet bowl teams to tank.
Looks like luck to me.

KICKERS

A's consistently spent the least here. Not a huge trend, but a consistent one.
The fact that A's and C's are so closely matched leads me to think that this data is simply random. However, as we see with DFs, another consistent difference between A's and B's is that B's spend more in ancillary positions. An extra buck at PK can't mean much but an extra $2 at PK, DT, and TE is the difference between a first round caliber RB and a second round one.

I like the return on investment stat. I was inclined to think PKs simply do not matter since C's returned the best. But when I looked at the data, I saw that a lone C team got a great kicker for $1 somehow. It pulled their average up significantly. So, I removed the high and low Return numbers and found that A's, indeed, get the most back.

I've no real conclusions to draw from this one other than spending more doesn't seem to give you more.

DEFENSIVE TEAMS

The cap spread here isn't large. But, as with PKs, please keep in mind that few dollars are spent this direction so the delta's are bound to be small.
A's spend the least. And when you remove the high and low for the cap, that delta grows.

With the roster data identical and the return not seriously large, I wanted mention something which I found telling. That consistency idea I was talking about earlier? There was NO league where A's did not out perform B's and C's in defensive return on investment. Not one. I'm not entirely certain if this was simply a fluke, but defensive performance seems to be an excellent indicator of a play-off team - despite the fact that A's spend less than B's and C's.

Well, you may draw different conclusions from this data but it seems to me that Studs rule and Fishing drools. That ancillary positions are a sucker's pick. That stud QB"s look like a good way to kill your hopes. That skimping on RBs gives you a tough row to hoe. And that knowing your league rules is likely the most important thing you can study.