There are some fantasy football players that believe that the lineup you pick can lose you a game just as much as it can win a contest. Having a player give you a consistent performance week after week can be considered more valuable than a player who goes off every third week and then takes two weeks off between those fantastic performances. Consistency has a value, and it does not take much of a leap to understand that players that you can rely on for solid games when you need them (such as in your postseason) are a huge advantage.
Baseball has a term called "Quality Starts" for pitchers, which is a statistic that represents how often a starting pitcher will put up a good (not great, just good) performance in a given game. The bar is set neither high nor low (six innings pitched, three earned runs or fewer) so as to gauge a decent performance. The theory behind it is that if your pitcher gives you a Quality Start, your team has a fighting chance to win a given game.
So now we need to translate this to football. What is "quality" for each position? How do we define a "Quality Start" for quarterbacks or running backs or any other position? Looking back at the 2017 season, I decided first to take the #12 RB for the year (Ezekiel Elliott, 205.2 fantasy points) and take that fantasy total and divide it by 16 for a per game average. My next step, however, was to take all of the Top 50 running backs from 2017 and sort them on a per game average. That method can account for missed games or a per-start performance metric, which is how most fantasy team owners would decide their roster for the week. The RB12 on a per-game average basis last season was Carlos Hyde, with 235.8 fantasy points in 16 games, or a 14.7 points per game average - significantly lower than Elliott's 20.5 average. Now I also acknowledge that taking RB12 seems a bit arbitrary, but if you are looking for a bare minimum of quality, the 12th RB should be the "worst starter" in your fantasy league as an RB1 and a great RB2.
Next, we move on to the more meaningful question - one of quantifying the quality. At what point do we decide whether or not a running back has given us a quality performance? Here is where it gets a bit murky, but looking at the distribution of RB performances by starters over the season and it becomes evident that the using the 12th RB average and adding or subtracting a percentage gives us a good range for an RB Quality Start.
Using the RB Quality Start range, we can also define a bad performance or an excellent performance as either falling below or exceeding the Quality Start range. Table 1 gives us the fantasy points that it takes to fall in each of the three areas:
|
RB Start Type
|
Fantasy Points
|
|
Bad Start
|
0 to 11.0
|
|
Quality Start
|
11.1 to 18.4
|
|
Excellent Start
|
18.5+
|
Table 1: 2017 RB Quality Start and Fantasy Point Ranges - PPR Scoring
Table 2 shows us the breakdown of all the Top 50 RBs and how many of each type of start resulted for each:
|
Running Back
|
Team
|
Excellent Starts
|
Quality Starts
|
Bad Starts
|
Total Starts
|
|
LAR
|
11
|
3
|
1
|
15
|
|
|
PIT
|
11
|
3
|
1
|
15
|
|
|
DAL
|
4
|
5
|
1
|
10
|
|
|
NOS
|
8
|
5
|
3
|
16
|
|
|
KCC
|
6
|
4
|
6
|
16
|
|
|
Melvin Gordon
|
LAC
|
7
|
6
|
3
|
16
|
|
Mark Ingram
|
NOS
|
7
|
4
|
5
|
16
|
|
JAC
|
5
|
6
|
2
|
13
|
|
|
MIN
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
4
|
|
|
BUF
|
7
|
5
|
4
|
16
|
|
|
WAS
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
10
|
|
|
SFO
|
4
|
8
|
4
|
16
|
|
|
ATL
|
4
|
4
|
6
|
14
|
|
|
CAR
|
5
|
5
|
6
|
16
|
|
|
CLE
|
3
|
7
|
6
|
16
|
|
|
WAS
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
|
|
NEP
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
10
|
|
|
CHI
|
4
|
4
|
8
|
16
|
|
|
NEP
|
3
|
5
|
8
|
16
|
|
|
HOU
|
2
|
7
|
7
|
16
|
|
|
BAL
|
2
|
4
|
9
|
15
|
|
|
TEN
|
3
|
2
|
10
|
15
|
|
|
Ty Montgomery
|
GBP
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
8
|
|
MIN
|
4
|
1
|
10
|
15
|
|
|
ATL
|
1
|
7
|
7
|
15
|
|
|
OAK
|
3
|
6
|
6
|
15
|
|
|
DEN
|
2
|
4
|
10
|
16
|
|
|
IND
|
0
|
7
|
9
|
16
|
|
|
BAL
|
4
|
1
|
11
|
16
|
|
|
CIN
|
1
|
4
|
9
|
14
|
|
|
NYJ
|
1
|
5
|
6
|
12
|
|
|
PHI
|
0
|
5
|
9
|
14
|
|
|
SEA
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
|
|
MIN
|
2
|
5
|
9
|
16
|
|
|
NYJ
|
2
|
1
|
12
|
15
|
|
|
DET
|
1
|
4
|
11
|
16
|
|
|
NEP
|
0
|
5
|
9
|
14
|
|
|
CIN
|
2
|
5
|
9
|
16
|
|
|
CHI
|
1
|
3
|
12
|
16
|
|
|
NYG
|
1
|
4
|
10
|
15
|
|
|
MIA
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
12
|
|
|
CLE
|
1
|
5
|
10
|
16
|
|
|
DET
|
1
|
4
|
9
|
14
|
|
|
JAC
|
2
|
0
|
8
|
10
|
|
|
GBP
|
3
|
3
|
8
|
14
|
|
|
SEA
|
0
|
1
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
TEN
|
2
|
3
|
11
|
16
|
|
|
ARI
|
2
|
1
|
7
|
10
|
|
|
CAR
|
1
|
1
|
12
|
14
|
|
|
NYG
|
0
|
5
|
8
|
13
|
|
|
Totals
|
143
|
196
|
339
|
||
Table 2: 2017 RB Start Types Sorted By Top 50 RBs - PPR Scoring
That's a lot of info to digest, so let me help. First, we see that there were fewer Excellent Starts (143) than there were Quality Starts (196), but it goes even further than that. Last season's 143 Excellent Starts is the fewest since 2010, nearly when I first started tracking these numbers - and the number of Quality Starts in 2017 (196) is one of the highest. To study it a bit further, I added them together for all of those nine seasons, and in every year since 2010 the combined total has been between 364 and 389 every year but 2016 (a total of 345) and last year (339). That means the last two seasons is starting to show a downward trend from Excellence to Quality and also screams towards the general committee approach to NFL backfields. In addition, there were a lot of Bad Starts in 2017 (339), but we are only looking for the best here, plus a "start" is not as definitive for a positional player that may just see partial playing time. The interesting part in 2010 was the sharp dip in Excellent Starts with only 146 total or less than 10 per week. That seems to be related to the higher threshold for excellence in 2010, as it took over 19.2 points that year to qualify while it has been between 16 and 18 points every season but 2010 - but that analysis blows up with last year's 18.5 number. Once again, I think we are seeing bigger performances at running back when it comes to PPR due to their larger involvement in the passing game. Table 3 summarizes a few of these trends:
|
Year
|
Excellent Starts
|
Quality Starts
|
Excellent Start Threshold
|
|
2017
|
143
|
196
|
18.5
|
|
2016
|
155
|
190
|
16.9
|
|
2015
|
184
|
198
|
16.1
|
|
2014
|
193
|
196
|
16.1
|
|
2013
|
172
|
206
|
17.8
|
|
2012
|
170
|
218
|
17.2
|
|
2011
|
183
|
199
|
17.6
|
|
2010
|
146
|
218
|
19.2
|
|
2009
|
183
|
229
|
17.5
|
Table 3: Excellent and Quality Starts - 2009 to 2017 - PPR Scoring
Now, to dig deeper, let's look at the numbers distributed in two different ways. First, I need to define a valuable starting running back in this system. We want an RB that will win more fantasy games than lose them, so we want either "Quality" or "Excellent" starts. Using a simple formula of scoring each type of start, we can define the value of a given NFL running back. Here is the formula:
STARTING FANTASY RB VALUE = EXCELLENT STARTS - BAD STARTS
We neglect to look at Quality Starts because they neither win games nor lose them on average - they are just average RB performances. We only really care about how often he helps our team vs. how often he hurts it. Giving a "-1" value to bad starts and "+1" to excellent ones does this for us.
On with the results, sorted by value:
|
Running Back
|
Team
|
Excellent Starts
|
Quality Starts
|
Bad Starts
|
Total Starts
|
NetVal
|
|
LAR
|
11
|
3
|
1
|
15
|
10
|
|
|
PIT
|
11
|
3
|
1
|
15
|
10
|
|
|
NOS
|
8
|
5
|
3
|
16
|
5
|
|
|
Melvin Gordon
|
LAC
|
7
|
6
|
3
|
16
|
4
|
|
DAL
|
4
|
5
|
1
|
10
|
3
|
|
|
JAC
|
5
|
6
|
2
|
13
|
3
|
|
|
BUF
|
7
|
5
|
4
|
16
|
3
|
|
|
Mark Ingram
|
NOS
|
7
|
4
|
5
|
16
|
2
|
|
KCC
|
6
|
4
|
6
|
16
|
0
|
|
|
MIN
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
4
|
0
|
|
|
SFO
|
4
|
8
|
4
|
16
|
0
|
|
|
CAR
|
5
|
5
|
6
|
16
|
-1
|
|
|
WAS
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
-1
|
|
|
WAS
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
10
|
-2
|
|
|
ATL
|
4
|
4
|
6
|
14
|
-2
|
|
|
NEP
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
10
|
-2
|
|
|
Ty Montgomery
|
GBP
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
8
|
-2
|
|
MIA
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
12
|
-2
|
|
|
CLE
|
3
|
7
|
6
|
16
|
-3
|
|
|
OAK
|
3
|
6
|
6
|
15
|
-3
|
|
|
SEA
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
-3
|
|
|
CHI
|
4
|
4
|
8
|
16
|
-4
|
|
|
NEP
|
3
|
5
|
8
|
16
|
-5
|
|
|
HOU
|
2
|
7
|
7
|
16
|
-5
|
|
|
NYJ
|
1
|
5
|
6
|
12
|
-5
|
|
|
GBP
|
3
|
3
|
8
|
14
|
-5
|
|
|
SEA
|
0
|
1
|
5
|
6
|
-5
|
|
|
ARI
|
2
|
1
|
7
|
10
|
-5
|
|
|
MIN
|
4
|
1
|
10
|
15
|
-6
|
|
|
ATL
|
1
|
7
|
7
|
15
|
-6
|
|
|
JAC
|
2
|
0
|
8
|
10
|
-6
|
|
|
BAL
|
2
|
4
|
9
|
15
|
-7
|
|
|
TEN
|
3
|
2
|
10
|
15
|
-7
|
|
|
BAL
|
4
|
1
|
11
|
16
|
-7
|
|
|
MIN
|
2
|
5
|
9
|
16
|
-7
|
|
|
CIN
|
2
|
5
|
9
|
16
|
-7
|
|
|
DEN
|
2
|
4
|
10
|
16
|
-8
|
|
|
CIN
|
1
|
4
|
9
|
14
|
-8
|
|
|
DET
|
1
|
4
|
9
|
14
|
-8
|
|
|
NYG
|
0
|
5
|
8
|
13
|
-8
|
|
|
IND
|
0
|
7
|
9
|
16
|
-9
|
|
|
PHI
|
0
|
5
|
9
|
14
|
-9
|
|
|
NEP
|
0
|
5
|
9
|
14
|
-9
|
|
|
NYG
|
1
|
4
|
10
|
15
|
-9
|
|
|
CLE
|
1
|
5
|
10
|
16
|
-9
|
|
|
TEN
|
2
|
3
|
11
|
16
|
-9
|
|
|
NYJ
|
2
|
1
|
12
|
15
|
-10
|
|
|
DET
|
1
|
4
|
11
|
16
|
-10
|
|
|
CHI
|
1
|
3
|
12
|
16
|
-11
|
|
|
CAR
|
1
|
1
|
12
|
14
|
-11
|
Table 4: 2017 RB Start Types Sorted By Value - PPR Scoring
This is a lot of information once again, but there are some important things to note here. Back in 2014, elite running backs dominated the list, while 2015 was completely scattered at the top due to injuries and surprises at the position. While last year's chart above looks like the NFL has reverted back to a feature back league once again, there is still a high chance of a lot of uncertainty and surprises at the running back position for this season. Doing your homework this summer to know who is the lead back (and also who is the clear backup, if there is one) for all 32 teams could mean all the difference for your team this year.
Lastly, I will sift through it for you and get right to the heart of the matter with our final table. Here we have the results sorted by value for the Top 36 RBs on the 2018 ADP list.
|
Running Back
|
Team
|
Excellent Starts
|
Quality Starts
|
Bad Starts
|
Total Starts
|
NetVal
|
ADP
|
|
LAR
|
11
|
3
|
1
|
15
|
10
|
1
|
|
|
PIT
|
11
|
3
|
1
|
15
|
10
|
2
|
|
|
NOS
|
8
|
5
|
3
|
16
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
Melvin Gordon
|
LAC
|
7
|
6
|
3
|
16
|
4
|
9
|
|
DAL
|
4
|
5
|
1
|
10
|
3
|
4
|
|
|
JAC
|
5
|
6
|
2
|
13
|
3
|
14
|
|
|
BUF
|
7
|
5
|
4
|
16
|
3
|
68
|
|
|
Mark Ingram
|
NOS
|
7
|
4
|
5
|
16
|
2
|
54
|
|
KCC
|
6
|
4
|
6
|
16
|
0
|
13
|
|
|
MIN
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
4
|
0
|
16
|
|
|
SFO
|
4
|
8
|
4
|
16
|
0
|
83
|
|
|
CAR
|
5
|
5
|
6
|
16
|
-1
|
21
|
|
|
ATL
|
4
|
4
|
6
|
14
|
-2
|
18
|
|
|
MIA
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
12
|
-2
|
37
|
|
|
WAS
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
10
|
-2
|
74
|
|
|
NEP
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
10
|
-2
|
100
|
|
|
CLE
|
3
|
7
|
6
|
16
|
-3
|
85
|
|
|
OAK
|
3
|
6
|
6
|
15
|
-3
|
87
|
|
|
CHI
|
4
|
4
|
8
|
16
|
-4
|
25
|
|
|
HOU
|
2
Photos provided by USA TODAY Sports
Tags
Analysis
RB
Point-per-reception
Ameer Abdullah
Le'Veon Bell
Giovani Bernard
Rex Burkhead
Chris Carson
Tevin Coleman
Alex Collins
Dalvin Cook
Mike Davis
Kenyan Drake
Ezekiel Elliott
Leonard Fournette
Devonta Freeman
Wayne Gallman
Melvin Gordon III
Derrick Henry
Jordan Howard
Kareem Hunt
Carlos Hyde
Mark Ingram II
Duke Johnson Jr
Alvin Kamara
Christian McCaffrey
Jerick McKinnon
Joe Mixon
Ty Montgomery II
Latavius Murray
Adrian Peterson
James White
Jamaal Williams
 Featured Articles
just now
|
