ADP vs Player Performance Part 1


By John Bush

ADP vs Player Performance Part 1

We analyzed the 2013 to 2017 ADP vs Player Performance and the relationship of the QB, RB and WR players ranked by their pre-season ADP (PS-ADP) to about the 180th player number – total positions except for DEF and K. Their end-of-season long PPR points scored modified by the metric Performance Scoring Finish (PF) which is PPR Points per Game, (ES PF) was determined.



Note this work is currently contained in my 1700 page Kindle Book on sale now.

This book will cover my original research not seen elsewhere. Just saying. It represents many hours of thought, calculation, and scheming.

Winning Dynasty and Redraft Fantasy Football Drafts_May 30th 2018 Version: First of Three 2018 Preseason Drafting Textbook Versions.

By John Bush and David Cherney Kindle Edition

scheduled update in early July if you wish to wait!


  The data from the years 2013 to 2017 is presented.

We calculated how strong the finish was for each position by comparing PS-ADP (Pre-Season) vs. the EOS-PF (End of Season). The data of the PS-ADP vs. ES-PF from the years 2013 to 2017 is presented in Figure 6-1.

We separated out the ADPs by sectors. TOP 6 equals the first 6 players drafted by position etc. and determined the 5-year EOS PF averages as well as % of usages by the positions. This last measure illustrates the amount of each position drafted by sector. IE in the Top 6 only WR and RBs were drafted in the 5-year timespan.

The data were subjected to colorization to mark the highs and lows within each positions column. The RB was a Positional TOP within TOP 6 sector, WRs were the TOP in sector 37 to 42, QB was TOP in sector 103 to 108 and TEs were at the TOP in sector 163 to 168.

Figure 6-1 Sector PF Averages by Position using 2013 to 2017 Data!


Figure 6-2 A. B. and C. Graphical Plot of Sector Positional Number Averages using 2013 to 2017 Data!

The plot in Figure 6-2 displays the actual numbers of players in each sector by position. For 5 years with 6 ADP slots, the total per sector is 30. In those 30, how many were QB, RB, WR, and TEs? What is the typical flow of a PPR redraft? Those questions are addressed in this plot.

For example, with sector TOP 6, 18 were RBs and 12 were WRs over the last 5 years. Certainly, a bias to the RB side. Note one can use to anticipate the 2018 draft as well.

Players will grab a WR mainly in sector 37 to 42. There is a Fantasy Football Cognitive Bias for team balance and our data has previously shown by the 6th pick many players are at 3 to 3 WR to RBs. The fear of an out of balance team is driving this. I previously discussed this bias as a part of non-expert FF player’s avoidance of uncertainty mechanism.

FF Players Biased Decisions Part 1

FF Players Biased Decisions Part 2


Thus, value players? would be predicted to not always follow the value if their team is too out of bias (6RB vs 6WR). What if the value was such that 6 RBs was the best value in your draft, would you follow the value or not?

Note WR vs RB spikes are seen in order with the draft. For example, after the top 6/12 RBs we see a spike in WRs over RBs in sectors 13 to 24, equal WR/RB equal from 25 to 36, WR heavy spike in 37 to 42, RB spike at 49 to 54, WR spike at 61 to 66, RB spike at 79 to 84, WR at 97 to 103 etc. We duplicated the figure and placed colored down arrows to point out the RB or WR spikes! I propose that fear of uncertainty is in play within the mid rounds lead to potential advantages for the sharp player!

Also of note is the tendency to draft later TE and QBs as seen in the increasing numbers of those players in negative correlation to RB and WRs starting after pick 70 ish (Figure 6-2B).

Figure 6-2A. This is a classic predator-prey relationship.

Thus, players are always playing catch-up in the WR vs RB team balance!

ADP vs Player Performance Slide2

Figure 6-2B. ADP Sectors (2013 to 2017) vs Positional Numbers


Figure 6-2C. WR vs RB Dominance By ADP Sectors 2013 to 2017

ADP vs Player Performance  Slide4

Figure 6-3 Positional % of the Sector End of Season Performance Scoring Averages 2013 to 2017.

We plotted the number of players drafted by ADP sector for each position. We colorized each position and established linear forecast trendlines for landscape views of the entire draft. This shows the levels of each position in a draft.

The beginning reveals that 63% of the 30 players in the top 6 sectors were RBs while 37% were WRs. This is high for RBs who dominate the first 6 draft picks! The red RB slope is down from that point ending near 25%. We propose that there are less viable RBs as you get into the draft!

WRs with the green trend line has a very gentle downslope and are always high after the top 6! The % of both QB and TE pick up and we see upward slopes as the drafts go along. Later QB and TE drafting have become the norm these days!

ADP vs Player Performance  Slide5

Failure in Drafts

I next wished to get a sense of draft success or failure within an average PPR draft. We defined failure as below a certain EOS PF score vs the rounds drafted. See Table Below! These were my self-made benchmarks for judgments.

ADP vs Player Performance  Slide6

Figure 6-4 Failure Numbers in Positions by Draft Sector

The Tabular data below lists the 5 years of each sector, positions drafted and failures. We colorized the failures vs totals drafted differentially for clarity. We have now switched our view from ADP to Positional Sector. TOP 6 = First 6 of that Position Drafted regardless of ADP.

Analysis of the data points to high failure rate in top 6 RBs! That has been with us for years hence Zero RB drafting! We will display thes failure % later by position

ADP vs Player Performance  Slide7

The next three tables the ADP Sectors and Draft rounds are present with total players drafted at each position over the 2013 to 2017-time frame as well failures that year using EOS PF data limits see failure table above.!

Figure 6-5 A and B. ADP Sectors vs EOS PF Failures by Position

In part A we see in the top 6 RBs that RBs have a 58% failure rate while top 6th WR has a 9% fail rate. Note the numbers were 19 RB drafted vs 11 WR drafted. Over half of your RB are going to be duds!

Interestingly, The WR start failing after the top 6 WRs, from 41 to 70% in these sectors from 7th to 24th WRs.

WRs worthy to be drafted in the top 6 ADP are historically very successful! 

TEs drafted in the top 6 are also nicely successful at 17% failures which extends to the 18 TE off the board with TEs failing about a 1/3 of the time. Thus ranked TEs into the 18 TEs are going to be successful with their failures at 1/3.

QBs in the 12th QBs picked were only 14% failures and between 1/4 to 1/3 failures from the 13th QBs pick to 18 QBth picked! Late QBs thus still have a shot at over 60% success waiting that late.

ADP vs Player Performance Slide8

Part B has the next grouping of sectors (pick 25th to 48th)  and notes that the TEs are having high failure rates! 38 to 85% in these sectors! WRs also are failing in here from 30 to 67%! Variation in WRs for sure. QBs range from 0% to 57%

Plan a draft with positional failure in mind! 

ADP vs Player Performance Slide9

Figure 6-6 A, B, and C Summary Positional Failures by Pre-Season ADP Sectors 2013 to 2017

We next plotted the Sector Average of Positional Failures by Sector of PS-ADP. The table with that data is presented and used in the plot of the data in 6-6A.

RBs fail early and late at over 50%.

TEs drafted in the middle have to highest failure rates. Beware of the mid-TE drafting.

QBs have low failure rates except in the late 3rd round of the draft.

Finally, the WRs have low failures in top 6 WRs as they are who they seem to be. However, the back half of top 12 WRs sees up to 70% WR failures. Those WRs are not returning enough value. Later in around the 36th WR round do we see safer WRs vs their draft picks!

ADP vs Player Performance Slide10


Parts B and C present the above positional data’s polynomial trendlines. The data for each position is plotted and we have highlighted by double arrow symbols where failures for each position are highest.

In 2018, these areas are potential high-risk zones for your drafts.

In your draft plans, extreme caution is suggested and extra levels of research are needed before your drafts.


The Failure Rates for WRs and TEs are shown below

Mid Level TEs after the 12th TE we see the highest failures of 60% into the 42nd TE!


The WRs display 3 danger zones :

  • 7th to 12th WRs Drafted

  • 25th to 36th WR drafted 

  • 49th to 60th WR drafted


ADP vs Player Performance Slide11



The failure zones for RBs and QB are shown below.

RBs have 2 main failure zones vs ADP levels. The first is within the top 6. Over the last 5 years, we have seen a significant level of failed RBs drafted vs WRs. (Zero RB drafting?). Also, the production of RBs 42nd to 55th ish as a group have had a 50% plus failure level.

QBs have been completely different than all other positions and late QBs are certainly suggested. In any level QBs after the top 6 QB, we can expect on 2 out 10 QB drafted to be failures. That is a nice cushion and I also suggest drafting 2 QBs late to control chance of failures.


ADP vs Player Performance Slide12

 Part 2 continues this research and it should be out this later week as well. Thanks for reading

***** Previous Articles Please Enjoy

More Information Increasing Accuracy?

Redraft ADP Pattern Analysis 5/9/18

Non-PPR Player Rankings Part 1

Non-PPR Rankings Part 2

PPR Rankings Part 1

PPR Rankings Part 2

Fantasy Football Planning

Why Late QB Drafting?

Best at Best Ball Part 1

Best at Best Ball Part 2

Best at Best Ball Part 3

Best at Best Ball Part 4

Best at Best Ball Part 5

FF Players Biased Decisions Part 1

FF Players Biased Decisions Part 2


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>