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

How consistent was Randy Moss in 2007? The maximum New Crank Score for a WR in a three-receiver starting lineup is 48, Moss scored 46 in a season for the ages. Andre Johnson was great when he was healthy, the New Crank Score shows where he falls with the dings factored into the equation (9th). Mock Draft Central participants are as optimistic he can stay healthy and threaten to crack the elite (7th). Santonio Holmes, Anquan Boldin, D.J. Hackett, and Deion Branch all lost ground due to injury.

Chris Chambers turned out to be slightly underrated with this new scoring because over 60 percent of his games were starter quality. Now that he’ll have a full season with the Chargers, I expect Chambers to fulfill his vast potential and produce as a top 15 receiver. Right now, he’s going off Mock Draft Central’s cumulative board as the 27th ranked receiver. Chambers has both the running game and surrounding cast not to have a bull’s eye on his back on every play.

The one player I like to improve his production this year is Kevin Curtis. He had three big games last year, but there were no other deep threats to be accounted for in the Eagles passing attack. DeSean Jackson’s presence should change that. I also like the trade for Lorenzo Booker, because he’s an example of an organization finding the kind of talent that fits well within their offensive scheme. This will allow the Eagles to use Booker and Westbrook at the same time, creating opportunities for the defense to forget about Curtis, which will result in big plays. I’m not expecting Curtis to be a top 15 player, but he could make a fine #3 WR at a bargain price.

Quarterbacks

Not much changes from the original Crank Score to the New Crank Score when it comes to quarterbacks. In fact only a few players moved up or down, and only by a notch or two.

Carson Palmer is a player getting a ton of love from fantasy owners at Mock Draft Central. On average he’s the fifth QB off their board, but he wasn’t even a starter in a 12-team league when it comes to consistent, start-like performance in 2007. What has changed in Cincinnati to make Palmer owners believe last year was a fluke? Chris Henry’s football card may have appeared more often on post office bulletin boards than collector shows, but he was a big reason why the passing game was so good in recent years. Donovan McNabb has been used to making something out of nothing, but can Palmer do the same thing? Rudi Johnson is healthy, but it’s difficult to anticipate him returning to his rock-solid form of two years ago. If you can get Palmer as a bargain, great, but his reputation leading up to 2007 has carried over in 2008 and that makes him a risk as the 5th QB off the board.

David Garrard’s numbers, much like RB Ryan Grant’s, are deceiving, because he and the Jags offense got on track in the last eight games of the 2007 season. Eighty three percent of Garrard’s games were starting quality down the stretch. With the addition of Jerry Porter, the improving play of Reggie Williams, and the impeding subtraction of underachieving Matt Jones should solidify the Jaguars rotation. Don’t expect Garrard to be an elite fantasy quarterback this year, but he should continue to be a viable starter.

Brian Griese was surprisingly good for his seven starts. People forget about him during his early days with the Broncos. Luke McCown wasn’t bad either. Both will serve as strong depth for Jon Gruden in Tampa. If you need a waiver wire gem, one of these two may do the trick. Remember them in case you own Garcia or your QB gets hurt and there’s not much in your league’s free agent pool.

Tight Ends

There aren’t any groundbreaking differences with tight ends, either. As with the quarterback position, this has to do with the fact that most leagues start only 1 TE or 1 QB. The New Crank score impacts the skill positions where there are multiple spots in a starting lineup.

What interests me most is the changing of the guard that occurred last year. Jeremy Shockey, Todd Heap, and Alge Crumpler were about as good as you could get at the tight end position for many years. Now they weren’t even starting material. Injury and quarterback changes were significant factors in the equation. One of those three is likely to rebound. I like Crumpler’s chances in Tennessee and if Heap is healthy, he’s been good with or without a decent fantasy starter at QB.

Leonard Pope is a forgotten man in Arizona, but his numbers improved last year. It’s a player like him that should encourage you to wait on a tight end, because he’ll likely be available on the waiver wire with a strong opportunity to produce better than average fantasy numbers at the position if you didn’t select an elite scorer early.

That’s a wrap for the New Crank Score. The next two articles will experiment with ways to potentially project consistency.