Fantasy Football: Regression Candidates Through Week 10
Regression is a big deal in fantasy football.
Who doesn't want to get in low on a player whose peripheral data is better than his fantasy point tallies are? Who wouldn't want to trade away a player who is playing way above expectation -- or perhaps avoid him in daily fantasy formats?
Expected regression is something that we can apply both to season-long fantasy football but also daily fantasy, as well.
So, I went through and paired up various parts of our Net Expected Points (NEP) model to help see where the biggest discrepancies are between players' fantasy points and their expected fantasy points.
Keep in mind that NEP correlates really (really) strongly to half-PPR fantasy points, so a lot of players are playing close to their actual fantasy point output. But it's the outliers that we should focus on.
Quarterbacks
Positive Regression Candidates
| Player | Passing FP |
Exp. Passing FP |
+/- | Rushing FP |
Exp. Rushing FP |
+/- | Total+/- |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Philip Rivers | 132.8 | 160.8 | -28.0 | -0.2 | 2.8 | -3.0 | -31.0 |
| Matt Ryan | 164.8 | 189.8 | -24.9 | 12.8 | 18.8 | -6.0 | -30.9 |
| Daniel Jones | 107.9 | 126.0 | -18.1 | 44.4 | 44.6 | -0.2 | -18.4 |
| Teddy Bridgewater | 147.1 | 166.9 | -19.8 | 37.6 | 33.4 | 4.2 | -15.6 |
| Joe Burrow | 142.4 | 167.7 | -25.3 | 31.0 | 20.0 | 11.0 | -14.3 |
| Alex Smith | 31.1 | 40.0 | -9.0 | 0.5 | 2.3 | -1.8 | -10.8 |
This is a very similar list to what we had last week but with a little bit of reshuffling. The reality remains that Matt Ryan and Philip Rivers are more efficient than their fantasy point totals imply. They both play in games with over/unders of 51.0 points this week, meaning we could see them right the ship a little bit. A week ago, Daniel Jones racked up 22.16 FanDuel points to get closer to his expected output, but he still remains on the list.
Joe Burrow had a rough go of it last week against the Pittsburgh Steelers and draws the Washington Football Team this week. Their defense sits 19th in adjusted pass defense based on numberFire's metrics. On the flip side of that game, Alex Smith's chain-moving ways have led to minimal fantasy points despite going for 325 and 390 yards in his two high-usage games. With just one passing touchdown, there's room for growth.
Negative Regression Candidates
| Player | Passing FP |
Exp. Passing FP |
+/- | Rushing FP |
Exp. Rushing FP |
+/- | Total+/- |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drew Lock | 77.9 | 65.1 | 12.8 | 18.5 | -2.1 | 20.6 | 33.4 |
| Tom Brady | 194.6 | 185.5 | 9.0 | 18.8 | -2.5 | 21.3 | 30.3 |
| Russell Wilson | 213.6 | 175.8 | 37.8 | 38.5 | 46.5 | -8.0 | 29.8 |
| Carson Wentz | 119.6 | 109.8 | 9.8 | 50.6 | 30.8 | 19.8 | 29.6 |
| Tua Tagovailoa | 40.8 | 37.2 | 3.6 | 3.4 | -10.7 | 14.1 | 17.7 |
| Lamar Jackson | 121.5 | 112.6 | 8.9 | 70.4 | 64.1 | 6.3 | 15.2 |
| Justin Herbert | 163.3 | 156.9 | 6.4 | 35.6 | 31.2 | 4.4 | 10.9 |
| Kirk Cousins | 142.9 | 129.7 | 13.2 | 5.4 | 8.4 | -3.0 | 10.2 |
For as unproductive as Drew Lock usually is, the data is so much worse. The garbage-time showing against the Atlanta Falcons two weeks ago (313 yards and 2 touchdowns on 48 attempts plus 7 carries for 47 yards and a score) didn't return on similar volume against the Oakland Raiders in Week 10: 257 yards and 1 touchdown on 47 attempts with just 2 rushes for 7 yards -- and 5 turnovers. The underlying stats reminded us not to chase Lock even in promising matchups.
Tom Brady has three rushing touchdowns to boost his otherwise non-existent rushing. As a passer, he's pretty much on point with expectation.
I mentioned last week that we shouldn't worry about Russell Wilson, and maybe that was premature. Wilson's NEP data is insanely good, but his touchdown rate is coming back to earth. That's not to imply Wilson will be bad moving forward, but he may not be quite as good as he had been to start the year. We'll learn a lot about him in a shootout on Thursday night.
Running Backs
Positive Regression Candidates
| Name | Actual FP |
Expected FP |
+/- |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frank Gore | 47.4 | 76.2 | -28.8 |
| Joshua Kelley | 60.9 | 85.6 | -24.7 |
| Kareem Hunt | 129.9 | 148.8 | -18.9 |
| Latavius Murray | 65.2 | 82.2 | -17.0 |
| Myles Gaskin | 85.5 | 101.3 | -15.8 |
| Austin Ekeler | 53.7 | 69.5 | -15.8 |
| Darrell Henderson | 97.3 | 110.1 | -12.8 |
| Tevin Coleman | 9.9 | 21.9 | -12.0 |
| Alec Ingold | 20.4 | 32.3 | -11.9 |
| Damien Harris | 56.7 | 68.0 | -11.3 |
| Cam Akers | 21.9 | 32.4 | -10.5 |
| Joe Mixon | 91.1 | 101.5 | -10.4 |
| Le'Veon Bell | 22.8 | 33.2 | -10.4 |
As discussed last week, the positive regression candidates at running back are going to be (and should be) backs with volume who haven't really produced. This is that list, effectively. None of these names are overly appealing from a daily fantasy standpoint, aside from -- perhaps -- Joe Mixon. Mixon (if healthy) will face a top-10 adjusted rush defense this week (Washington).
Because this list is mostly part-time players or players in bad offenses, a more fun regression notation is strictly touchdowns. Frank Gore (-3.0), Damien Harris (-2.7), Clyde Edwards-Helaire (-2.6), Devin Singletary (-2.2), and Kareem Hunt (-2.0) are all at least two scores from expectation. So perhaps Harris should be the guy to hone in on here. He has three 100-yard games rushing but only a single touchdown. The primary issue for him is that he has just two targets on the full season, but a multi-touchdown game isn't out of the realm of possibility for Harris sooner rather than later.
Negative Regression Candidates
| Name | Actual FP |
Expected FP |
+/- |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ronald Jones | 128.4 | 79.7 | 48.7 |
| Melvin Gordon | 92.6 | 51.4 | 41.2 |
| Antonio Gibson | 118.8 | 79.6 | 39.2 |
| Dalvin Cook | 202.3 | 174.9 | 27.4 |
| Alvin Kamara | 212.9 | 187.6 | 25.3 |
| Mike Davis | 115.0 | 90.4 | 24.6 |
| Nick Chubb | 79.3 | 55.7 | 23.6 |
| Todd Gurley | 127.8 | 108.9 | 18.9 |
| Nyheim Hines | 96.7 | 78.9 | 17.8 |
| Jordan Howard | 27.5 | 10.6 | 16.9 |
| Wayne Gallman | 71.5 | 56.4 | 15.1 |
| Aaron Jones | 128.4 | 114.2 | 14.2 |
| Miles Sanders | 93.0 | 79.5 | 13.5 |
| D'Andre Swift | 112.1 | 99.4 | 12.7 |
| Chris Carson | 100.1 | 87.7 | 12.4 |
When you run for a 98-yard touchdown, you're going to outperform your fantasy point expectation. That's what happened to Ronald Jones this week. But the crazy thing is that he isn't really off-base from a rushing standpoint -- it's the inefficiency receiving that makes him an outlier. He's actually lost expected points on his catches. The same applies to Melvin Gordon. That's pretty hard to do.
Antonio Gibson is an interesting addition to the list, particularly so close to the top. The number of successful rushes plus expected points as a receiver correlate really strongly to fantasy points at the running back position. Gibson ranks 17th in rushing successes but is 10th in rushing fantasy points; in total, he's 3.6 touchdowns above expectation. If the touchdowns dry up and all else stay equal (particularly losing an insane amount of receiving volume to J.D. McKissic), Gibson will take a step back in the fantasy point column. Exercise some caution.
Wide Receivers
Positive Regression Candidates
| Player | Actual FP |
Expected FP |
Total +/- |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tyler Boyd | 110.5 | 132.5 | -22.0 |
| Danny Amendola | 55.1 | 72.0 | -16.9 |
| Kendrick Bourne | 58.3 | 72.4 | -14.1 |
| Travis Fulgham | 83.3 | 97.1 | -13.8 |
| Julian Edelman | 42.0 | 55.7 | -13.7 |
| Jarvis Landry | 62.8 | 76.1 | -13.3 |
| D.J. Moore | 117.1 | 130.1 | -13.0 |
| Cole Beasley | 109.7 | 122.0 | -12.3 |
| Jakobi Meyers | 49.3 | 61.2 | -11.9 |
| Julio Jones | 103.3 | 113.9 | -10.6 |
| John Brown | 65.1 | 75.5 | -10.4 |
| Calvin Ridley | 123.2 | 133.5 | -10.3 |
| Chris Godwin | 70.2 | 80.2 | -10.0 |
Tyler Boyd was the poster boy for regression last week, and he could be there again this week. He's 2.1 touchdowns off his expected mark, a bottom-five number among all receivers. The others ahead of him are Robby Anderson (-2.9), Jarvis Landry (-2.8), Danny Amendola (-2.7), and Jakobi Meyers (-2.2).
Travis Fulgham climbed up this list by a few points. He's been so efficient and hasn't had touchdown issues, but the inefficiency from Carson Wentz has bogged him down a bit. Because Reception NEP ties so closely to fantasy points, we should just expect more from Fulgham.
Negative Regression Candidates
| Player | Actual FP |
Expected FP |
Total +/- |
|---|---|---|---|
| Robert Woods | 91.8 | 66.3 | 25.5 |
| Adam Thielen | 126.8 | 104.4 | 22.4 |
| Davante Adams | 158.6 | 136.4 | 22.2 |
| DeAndre Hopkins | 146.0 | 128.9 | 17.1 |
| Darnell Mooney | 63.6 | 48.6 | 15.0 |
| Diontae Johnson | 85.1 | 70.2 | 14.9 |
| Tyler Lockett | 139.1 | 124.4 | 14.7 |
| Greg Ward | 64.7 | 50.1 | 14.6 |
| Chase Claypool | 108.1 | 94.3 | 13.8 |
| Demarcus Robinson | 44.5 | 31.8 | 12.7 |
| Mike Evans | 119.4 | 106.9 | 12.5 |
| Robby Anderson | 114.5 | 102.9 | 11.6 |
| Allen Robinson | 125.0 | 114.0 | 11.0 |
| Christian Kirk | 92.2 | 81.2 | 11.0 |
| A.J. Brown | 99.6 | 89.0 | 10.6 |
We should really be worried about Robert Woods. No receiver has outperformed fantasy point expectations (just from receiving) more than Woods, and he (17.1%) has been surpassed by Josh Reynolds (18.1%) in target market share since Week 5. The arrow is way down on Woods.
Adam Thielen scored twice last week and is now up to nine touchdowns. That's 5.0 touchdowns above expectation based on his peripheral data. Part of that can be explained away by his role within the offense, sure, but he's the only receiver above 4.0 and just one of five total above 3.0 (the others being Mike Evans [3.9], Tyreek Hill [3.8], Davante Adams [3.7], and Chase Claypool [3.4]).
Does this suggest that we should trade Thielen (or Adams, Evans, or Hill) at their peaks? Not exactly, no. But when it comes to building daily fantasy lineups, it's probably smart to expect touchdown rate to cool off for some of these studs. That can give us a ton of leverage.
Tight Ends
Positive Regression Candidates
| Player | Receiving FP |
Exp. Receiving FP |
Total +/- |
|---|---|---|---|
| George Kittle | 77.9 | 96.0 | -18.1 |
| Austin Hooper | 39.1 | 50.9 | -11.8 |
| Greg Olsen | 36.9 | 45.5 | -8.6 |
| Logan Thomas | 62.2 | 70.4 | -8.2 |
| Travis Kelce | 141.9 | 146.7 | -4.8 |
| Mo Alie-Cox | 51.3 | 55.9 | -4.6 |
| Anthony Firkser | 43.4 | 47.6 | -4.2 |
There's not a whole lot we'll see with tight ends. The lack of yardage from the position as a whole really means that regression pinpoints the biggest touchdown outliers -- for the most part. Austin Hooper is 1.3 scores off his expected pace and Anthony Firkser is 1.2 off his expected pace. As mentioned last week, George Kittle (get well soon) and Travis Kelce are so much more efficient on elevated volume than other tight ends that they kind of operate at their own pace.
I'd like to throw Evan Engram here, as well. He's 1.8 touchdowns shy of expectation, but the actual fantasy points he has accumulated are about equal to expectation. I can't quit him.
Negative Regression Candidates
| Player | Receiving FP |
Exp. Receiving FP |
Total +/- |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chris Herndon | 17.1 | -1.7 | 18.8 |
| Darren Waller | 93.5 | 77.0 | 16.5 |
| Jimmy Graham | 77.7 | 64.4 | 13.3 |
| Jared Cook | 62.4 | 51.9 | 10.5 |
| Gerald Everett | 42.5 | 32.1 | 10.4 |
| Noah Fant | 66.2 | 56.4 | 9.8 |
| Dallas Goedert | 33.6 | 26.3 | 7.3 |
Chris Herndon has lost expected points on his catches, the only tight end with at least five catches to do so. In fact, among 30 tight ends with at least 25 targets, his -2.69 Reception NEP is 13.73 points shy of the next worst output (Dallas Goedert at 11.04).
I mentioned this last week, but Darren Waller has 77 targets, and Kelce has 79. Despite that, Kelce has effectively doubled-up Waller in Reception NEP (70.06 to 35.93). Waller's hollow volume (by comparison) bested him last week with just 37 yards on 5 targets.
