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 2019 season, the first attempt was to use the #24 WR for the year (Michael Gallup, 212.7 fantasy points) and take that fantasy total and divide it by 16 for a per game average (13.3 points per game). The next step, however, was to take all of the Top 75 wide receivers from 2019 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 WR24 on a per-game average basis last season was Stefon Diggs, with 218.1 fantasy points in 15 games, or a 14.54 points per game average - certainly higher than Gallup over 16 contests. The reason that this is the better baseline comes from four strong examples of receivers that were outside of the Top 24 wide receiver performance list for the season, but averaged more than 15 points per game. Mike Evans, Davante Adams, Tyreek Hill, and Calvin Ridley were all fantasy starters when they were healthy, and their strong points per game averages pointed to that fact. Therefore, using the per game average is by far the best method. Now it is reasonable to also acknowledge that taking WR24 seems a bit arbitrary, but if you are looking for a bare minimum of quality, the 24th WR should be the "worst starter" in your fantasy league as a WR2 and a great WR3.
Next, we move on to the next question - one of quantifying the quality. At what point do we decide whether or not a wide receiver has given us a quality performance? Here is where it gets a bit murky, but looking at the distribution of WR performances by starters over the season and it becomes evident that the using the 24th WR average and adding or subtracting a percentage gives us a good range for a WR Quality Start.
Using the WR 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 10.9
|
|
Quality Start
|
11.0 to 18.1
|
|
Excellent Start
|
18.2+
|
Table 1: 2019 WR Quality Start and Fantasy Point Ranges - PPR Scoring
Table 2 shows us the breakdown of all the Top 75 WRs from 2019 and how many of each type of start resulted for each:
|
Wide Receiver
|
Team
|
Excellent Starts
|
Quality Starts
|
Bad Starts
|
Total Starts
|
|
NOS
|
11
|
3
|
2
|
16
|
|
|
TBB
|
5
|
6
|
3
|
14
|
|
|
ATL
|
6
|
6
|
3
|
15
|
|
|
HOU
|
6
|
6
|
3
|
15
|
|
|
TBB
|
6
|
2
|
4
|
12
|
|
|
GBP
|
8
|
2
|
2
|
12
|
|
|
LAR
|
7
|
5
|
3
|
15
|
|
|
LAC
|
6
|
5
|
5
|
16
|
|
|
NEP
|
8
|
4
|
4
|
16
|
|
|
CHI
|
7
|
6
|
3
|
16
|
|
|
KCC
|
5
|
4
|
2
|
11
|
|
|
DET
|
6
|
4
|
6
|
16
|
|
|
LAR
|
6
|
3
|
6
|
15
|
|
|
CAR
|
5
|
7
|
3
|
15
|
|
|
DAL
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
15
|
|
|
MIA
|
6
|
7
|
2
|
15
|
|
|
DAL
|
4
|
5
|
5
|
14
|
|
|
ATL
|
5
|
4
|
4
|
13
|
|
|
JAC
|
4
|
3
|
8
|
15
|
|
|
DET
|
5
|
2
|
6
|
13
|
|
|
CLE
|
4
|
8
|
4
|
16
|
|
|
SEA
|
4
|
6
|
5
|
15
|
|
|
BUF
|
3
|
9
|
3
|
15
|
|
|
MIN
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
15
|
|
|
NYG
|
4
|
2
|
4
|
10
|
|
|
CIN
|
4
|
6
|
6
|
16
|
|
|
NYG
|
3
|
7
|
2
|
12
|
|
|
DEN
|
5
|
5
|
6
|
16
|
|
|
WAS
|
4
|
4
|
6
|
14
|
|
|
TEN
|
6
|
3
|
7
|
16
|
|
|
ARI
|
2
|
5
|
6
|
13
|
|
|
CLE
|
2
|
7
|
7
|
16
|
|
|
SFO
|
4
|
6
|
5
|
15
|
|
|
IND
|
3
|
1
|
6
|
10
|
|
|
NYJ
|
6
|
1
|
9
|
16
|
|
|
BUF
|
3
|
7
|
5
|
15
|
|
|
PHI
|
3
|
2
|
3
|
8
|
|
|
HOU
|
3
|
1
|
7
|
11
|
|
|
CIN
|
1
|
2
|
5
|
8
|
|
|
Darius Slayton
|
NYG
|
4
|
3
|
7
|
14
|
|
SEA
|
3
|
8
|
4
|
15
|
|
|
MIA
|
2
|
1
|
5
|
8
|
|
|
MIN
|
3
|
2
|
4
|
9
|
|
|
SFO
|
3
|
3
|
10
|
16
|
|
|
ARI
|
1
|
8
|
7
|
16
|
|
|
LAC
|
1
|
7
|
7
|
15
|
|
|
CAR
|
2
|
6
|
8
|
16
|
|
|
DAL
|
3
|
3
|
9
|
15
|
|
|
BAL
|
2
|
4
|
8
|
14
|
|
|
JAC
|
3
|
4
|
7
|
14
|
|
|
OAK
|
4
|
2
|
7
|
13
|
|
|
OAK
|
1
|
7
|
5
|
13
|
|
|
Robby Anderson
|
NYJ
|
4
|
4
|
8
|
16
|
|
PIT
|
5
|
2
|
9
|
16
|
|
|
CHI
|
2
|
2
|
5
|
9
|
|
|
KCC
|
1
|
2
|
9
|
12
|
|
|
TBB
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
11
|
|
|
JAC
|
3
|
4
|
8
|
15
|
|
|
PIT
|
3
|
2
|
7
|
12
|
|
|
DET
|
3
|
1
|
10
|
14
|
|
|
HOU
|
2
|
3
|
8
|
13
|
|
|
PIT
|
4
|
1
|
8
|
13
|
|
|
PHI
|
2
|
1
|
7
|
10
|
|
|
CIN
|
1
|
4
|
8
|
13
|
|
|
IND
|
4
|
3
|
7
|
14
|
|
|
LAR
|
2
|
3
|
7
|
12
|
|
|
NEP
|
2
|
3
|
10
|
15
|
|
|
CHI
|
3
|
4
|
8
|
15
|
|
|
NYJ
|
1
|
2
|
9
|
12
|
|
|
TEN
|
3
|
0
|
12
|
15
|
|
|
KCC
|
2
|
5
|
8
|
15
|
|
|
TEN
|
1
|
1
|
10
|
12
|
|
|
NEP
|
2
|
2
|
6
|
10
|
|
|
MIA
|
1
|
3
|
9
|
13
|
|
|
SEA
|
1
|
1
|
9
|
11
|
|
|
Totals
|
277
|
291
|
454
|
|
|
Table 2: 2019 WR Start Types Sorted By Top 75 WRs - PPR Scoring
That's a lot of info to digest, so here is some help. First, we see that there were fewer Excellent Starts (277) than there were Quality Starts (291), but it goes even further than that. Last season's 277 Excellent Starts total was nearly the same number as 2017 and 2018 (both 279), but the number of Quality Starts dropped significantly from 2017 (2018 and 2019 were both down 20% from 357 in both 2017 and 2016). This can be attributed to the higher standard for both Excellent Starts (18.2+ points) and Quality Starts (11.0), both the highest levels in the past 11 seasons. While the NFL is clearly favoring the passing game, the bar for elite wide receivers is also going up. Of course, there were also a large number of Bad Starts (454), 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. Table 3 summarizes a few of these trends:
|
Year
|
Excellent Starts
|
Quality Starts
|
Excellent Start Threshold
|
|
2019
|
277
|
291
|
18.2
|
|
2018
|
279
|
286
|
17.5
|
|
2017
|
279
|
357
|
15.4
|
|
2016
|
267
|
357
|
16.7
|
|
2015
|
310
|
305
|
16.6
|
|
2014
|
325
|
290
|
16.4
|
|
2013
|
322
|
281
|
15.8
|
|
2012
|
355
|
319
|
15.4
|
|
2011
|
315
|
340
|
15.4
|
|
2010
|
332
|
281
|
14.9
|
|
2009
|
322
|
348
|
14.8
|
Table 3: Excellent and Quality Starts - 2009 to 2019 - PPR Scoring
Now, to dig deeper, let's look at the numbers distributed in two different ways. First, we need to define a valuable starting wide receiver in this system. We want a WR 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 wide receiver. Here is the formula:
STARTING FANTASY WR 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 WR 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:
|
Wide Receiver
|
Team
|
Excellent Starts
|
Quality Starts
|
Bad Starts
|
Total Starts
|
Net Value
|
|
NOS
|
11
|
3
|
2
|
16
|
9
|
|
|
GBP
|
8
|
2
|
2
|
12
|
6
|
|
|
LAR
|
7
|
5
|
3
|
15
|
4
|
|
|
NEP
|
8
|
4
|
4
|
16
|
4
|
|
|
CHI
|
7
|
6
|
3
|
16
|
4
|
|
|
MIA
|
6
|
7
|
2
|
15
|
4
|
|
|
ATL
|
6
|
6
|
3
|
15
|
3
|
|
|
HOU
|
6
|
6
|
3
|
15
|
3
|
|
|
KCC
|
5
|
4
|
2
|
11
|
3
|
|
|
TBB
|
5
|
6
|
3
|
14
|
2
|
|
|
TBB
|
6
|
2
|
4
|
12
|
2
|
|
|
CAR
|
5
|
7
|
3
|
15
|
2
|
|
|
LAC
|
6
|
5
|
5
|
16
|
1
|
|
|
ATL
|
5
|
4
|
4
|
13
|
1
|
|
|
NYG
|
3
|
7
|
2
|
12
|
1
|
|
|
DET
|
6
|
4
|
6
|
16
|
0
|
|
|
LAR
|
6
|
3
|
6
|
15
|
0
|
|
|
DAL
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
15
|
0
|
|
|
CLE
|
4
|
8
|
4
|
16
|
0
|
|
|
BUF
|
3
|
9
|
3
|
15
|
0
|
|
|
MIN
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
15
|
0
|
|
|
NYG
|
4
|
2
|
4
|
10
|
0
|
|
|
PHI
|
3
|
2
|
3
|
8
|
0
|
|
|
DAL
|
4
|
5
|
5
|
14
|
-1
|
|
|
DET
|
5
|
2
|
6
|
13
|
-1
|
|
|
SEA
|
4
|
6
|
5
|
15
|
-1
|
|
|
DEN
|
5
|
5
|
6
|
16
|
-1
|
|
|
TEN
|
6
|
3
|
7
|
16
|
-1
|
|
|
SFO
|
4
|
6
|
5
|
15
|
-1
|
|
|
SEA
|
3
|
8
|
4
|
15
|
-1
|
|
|
MIN
|
3
|
2
|
4
|
9
|
-1
|
|
|
TBB
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
11
|
-1
|
|
|
CIN
|
4
|
6
|
6
|
16
|
-2
|
|
|
WAS
|
4
|
4
|
6
|
14
|
-2
|
|
|
BUF
|
3
|
7
|
5
|
15
|
-2
|
|
|
IND
|
3
|
1
|
6
|
10
|
-3
|
|
|
NYJ
|
6
|
1
|
9
|
16
|
-3
|
|
|
Darius Slayton
|
NYG
|
4
|
3
|
7
|
14
|
-3
|
|
MIA
|
2
|
1
|
5
|
8
|
-3
|
|
|
OAK
|
4
|
2
|
7
|
13
|
-3
|
|
|
CHI
|
2
|
2
|
5
|
9
|
-3
|
|
|
IND
|
4
|
3
|
7
|
14
|
-3
|
|
|
JAC
|
4
|
3
|
8
|
15
|
-4
|
|
|
ARI
|
2
|
5
|
6
|
13
|
-4
|
|
|
HOU
|
3
|
1
|
7
|
11
|
-4
|
|
|
CIN
|
1
|
2
|
5
|
8
|
-4
|
|
|
JAC
|
3
|
4
|
7
|
14
|
-4
|
|
|
OAK
|
1
|
7
|
5
|
13
|
-4
|
|
|
Robby Anderson
|
NYJ
|
4
|
4
|
8
|
16
|
-4
|
|
PIT
|
5
|
2
|
9
|
16
|
-4
|
|
|
PIT
|
3
|
2
|
7
|
12
|
-4
|
|
|
PIT
|
4
|
1
|
8
|
13
|
-4
|
|
|
NEP
|
2
|
2
|
6
|
10
|
-4
|
|
|
CLE
|
2
|
7
|
7
|
16
|
-5
|
|
|
JAC
|
3
|
4
|
8
|
15
|
-5
|
|
|
PHI
|
2
|
1
|
7
|
10
|
-5
|
|
|
LAR
|
2
|
3
|
7
|
12
|
-5
|
|
|
CHI
|
3
|
4
|
8
|
15
|
-5
|
|
|
ARI
|
1
|
8
|
7
|
16
|
-6
|
|
|
LAC
|
1
|
7
|
7
|
15
|
-6
|
|
|
CAR
|
2
|
6
|
8
|
16
|
-6
|
|
|
DAL
|
3
|
3
|
9
|
15
|
-6
|
|
|
BAL
|
2
|
4
|
8
|
14
|
-6
|
|
|
HOU
|
2
|
3
|
8
|
13
|
-6
|
|
|
KCC
|
2
|
5
|
8
|
15
|
-6
|
|
|
SFO
|
3
|
3
|
10
|
16
|
-7
|
|
|
DET
|
3
|
1
|
10
|
14
|
-7
|
|
|
CIN
|
1
|
4
|
8
|
13
|
-7
|
|
|
KCC
|
1
|
2
|
9
|
12
|
-8
|
|
|
NEP
|
2
|
3
|
10
|
15
|
-8
|
|
|
NYJ
|
1
|
2
|
9
|
12
|
-8
|
|
|
MIA
|
1
|
3
|
9
|
13
|
-8
|
|
|
SEA
|
1
|
1
|
9
|
11
|
-8
|
|
|
TEN
|
3
|
0
|
12
|
15
|
-9
|
|
|
TEN
|
1
|
1
|
10
|
12
|
-9
|
Table 4: 2019 WR Start Types Sorted By Value - PPR Scoring
This is a lot of information once again, but some names leap out at us. The first observation is that there were only five receivers on the entire list with only two bad starts (Davante Adams, Tyreek Hill, Michael Thomas, DeVante Parker, and Golden Tate) and only two of that select group played at least 13 games (Michael Thomas and DeVante Parket). Four of these receivers (all but Golden Tate) were in the Top in Net Value, joined by five others with just three or four bad starts. These same Top 9 accounted for a combined +40 Net Value, over 80% of the positive value on the chart. Despite 23 receivers having a non-negative Net Value last year, even if you had a fantasy roster completely comprised of this short and elite list, at least one of your wide receivers would still underperform roughly 20% of the time. That shows how difficult it was to find reliable, quality receivers once again last season. It is decidedly clear that getting 2-4 top notch receivers on your fantasy team is critical to success in today's pass-happy NFL.
Lastly, let's sift through the data 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 48 WRs on the 2020 ADP list.
|
Tight End
|
Team
|
Excellent Starts
|
Quality Starts
|
Bad Starts
|
Total Starts
|
Net Value
|
ADP
|
|
NOS
|
11
|
3
|
2
|
16
|
9
|
4
|
|
|
GBP
|
8
|
2
|
2
|
12
|
6
|
8
|
|
|
LAR
|
7
|
5
|
3
|
15
|
4
|
34
|
|
|
CHI
|
7
|
6
|
3
|
16
|
4
|
36
|
|
|
MIA
|
6
|
7
|
2
|
15
|
4
|
66
|
|
|
NEP
|
8
|
4
|
4
|
16
|
4
|
91
|
|
|
HOU
|
6
|
6
|
3
|
15
|
3
|
11
|
|
|
KCC
|
5
|
4
|
2
|
11
|
3
|
10
|
|
|
ATL
|
6
|
6
|
3
|
15
|
3
|
13
|
|
|
TBB
|
5
|
6
|
3
|
14
|
2
|
20
|
|
|
TBB
|
6
|
2
|
4
|
12
|
2
|
25
|
|
|
CAR
|
5
|
7
|
3
|
15
|
2
|
29
|
|
|
LAC
|
6
|
5
|
5
|
16
|
1
|
49
|
|
|
ATL
|
5
|
4
|
4
|
13
|
1
|
43
|
|
|
NYG
|
3
|
7
|
2
|
12
|
1
|
WR58
|
|
|
DET
|
6
|
4
|
6
|
16
|
0
|
27
|
|
|
PHI
|
3
|
2
|
3
|
8
|
0
|
WR60
|
|
|
BUF
|
3
|
9
|
3
|
15
|
0
|
129
|
|
|
NYG
|
4
|
2
|
4
|
10
|
0
|
124
|
|
|
CLE
|
4
|
8
|
4
|
16
|
0
|
71
|
|
|
LAR
|
6
|
3
|
6
|
15
|
0
|
53
|
|
|
MIN
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
15
|
0
|
61
|
|
|
DAL
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
15
|
0
|
30
|
|
|
DET
|
5
|
2
|
6
|
13
|
-1
|
100
|
|
|
DAL
|
4
|
5
|
5
|
14
|
-1
|
81
|
|
|
SFO
|
4
|
6
|
5
|
15
|
-1
|
68
|
|
|
SEA
|
3
|
8
|
4
|
15
|
-1
|
58
|
|
|
SEA
|
4
|
6
|
5
|
15
|
-1
|
60
|
|
|
DEN
|
5
|
5
|
6
|
16
|
-1
|
52
|
|
|
TEN
|
6
|
3
|
7
|
16
|
-1
|
44
|
|
|
MIN
|
3
|
2
|
4
|
9
|
-1
|
35
|
|
|
CIN
|
4
|
6
|
6
|
16
|
-2
|
84
|
|
|
WAS
|
4
|
4
|
6
|
14
|
-2
|
63
|
|
|
Darius Slayton
|
NYG
|
4
|
3
|
7
|
14
|
-3
|
116
|
|
IND
|
3
|
1
|
6
|
10
|
-3
|
62
|
|
|
NYJ
|
6
|
1
|
9
|
16
|
-3
|
123
|
|
|
PIT
|
5
|
2
|
9
|
16
|
-4
|
108
|
|
|
ARI
|
2
|
5
|
6
|
13
|
-4
|
107
|
|
|
HOU
|
3
|
1
|
7
|
11
|
-4
|
93
|
|
|
JAC
|
4
|
3
|
8
|
15
|
-4
|
65
|
|
|
PIT
|
3
|
2
|
7
|
12
|
-4
|
37
|
|
|
LAR
|
2
|
3
|
7
|
12
|
-5
|
89
|
|
|
CLE
|
2
|
7
|
7
|
16
|
-5
|
31
|
|
|
LAC
|
1
|
7
|
7
|
15
|
-6
|
WR49
|
|
|
BAL
|
2
|
4
|
8
|
14
|
-6
|
77
|
|
|
SFO
|
3
|
3
|
10
|
16
|
-7
|
113
|
|
|
CIN
|
(Injured)
|
70
|
|||||
|
DEN
|
(Rookie)
|
94
|
|||||
|
DAL
|
(Rookie)
|
99
|
|||||
|
MIN
|
(Rookie)
|
115
|
|||||
|
LV
|
(Rookie)
|
105
|
|||||
Table 5: 2020 Top Drafted WRs Sorted By 2019 Value - PPR Scoring
Judging from 2019, there were clearly a number of receivers that excelled far more often than disappointed on a weekly basis. No fewer than 13 wide receivers had at least six Excellent Starts, highlighted at the top of the chart by Michael Thomas’ 11 outstanding performances and Davante Adams’ eight elite games (matched by Julian Edelman). Normally it would be expected for all 13 of these wide receivers project to be drafted in the first four rounds in most PPR-league fantasy drafts the following year, but four receivers off of this list are projected to last until Round 5 or later. Edelman and Keenan Allen have seen their quarterbacks change, while Robert Woods has moved to yet another franchise - this time Houston. Lastly, DeVante Parker is getting overlooked quite a bit because so little was expected of Miami last year. All four veteran receivers could easily represent strong value this season if they can perform at 2019 levels. Parker deserves further mention with 13 of his 15 starts resulting in either a Quality Or Excellent performance. Other potential values from the final table include Golden Tate and Alshon Jeffery, both available after 48+ receivers are drafted in most leagues, and both Brandon Cooks and Emmanuel Sanders -- who are now in Houston and New Orleans, respectively. Cooks and Sanders have Pro Bowl-caliber talent at quarterback and should see more involvement in their respective passing games. Cooks looks to fill the massive DeAndre Hopkins shoes, while Sanders tries to give a complementary wideout to Michael Thomas - an element of the Saints' offense that has been missing for quite a while. This is where looking at prior season numbers can be misleading, so as always take the Quality Start numbers from 2019 with a grain of salt. There is no reason to believe in these numbers as 100% indications of 2020 performance, but having this information available should give you more to think about when deciding who you will have leading your fantasy team this year.
Did you enjoy this article? Find more of Jeff Pasquino's work here.
Questions, suggestions, and comments are always welcome to pasquino@footballguys.com.