DFS Wide Receiver Strategy: DraftKings 2015 Year in Review

Given that you have the internet (or are stealing Wi-Fi at Starbucks; I'm not judging, we've all done it) and are reading a fantasy football article, you've probably heard of the new Zero RB phenomenon. Guess what? Zero RB applies to DraftKings too: you should be paying up for WRs, not RBs. (When you're writing a WR article, it sucks that Zero RB is called "Zero RB". Some readers are bound to think I copy-pasted the wrong intro, or titled the article wrong, or that I just plain stink at writing intros like Leonard Hankerson does at football. Can I start calling it "Infinite WR" instead? Nah? Alright.)

The subsequent data will reveal why you should be spending the big bucks at WR, but first I'll quickly go through my methodology.

I compiled data on the performance of WRs on DraftKings relative to their salary in 2015 to see what lessons we can learn going forward.

I broke salaries down into $500 increments and looked at points scored per $1,000 of salary, percentage of time hitting cash game value, and percentage of time hitting tournament value. I also took a look at how each individual WR performed.

I looked at 827 WR games from 2015 (every game where a WR had a salary and was projected for 9.0 DraftKings points or more by 4for4). The WR data will be compared across salary ranges and across positions.

The data will be laid out below and followed with some key points, and then I'll sum up the actionable takeaways at the end of the article.

Note: The sample sizes for each salary tier can be found in the appendix at the end of the article.

Salary vs. Performance

• QBs tend to score more points per dollar than other positions, so the real comparison here is between WRs and RBs. At the higher salary tiers, WRs are much more plentiful than RBs -- there were 124 instances of a WR priced at $7,500 or above, compared to just 30 RBs. Aside from a strong showing from the 22 RBs in the $7,500-$7,900 tier, WRs provided a greater ROI at every single salary tier of $6,000 and above.
• WRs provided less of an ROI than RBs in the $4,000-$5,900 range. WRs in this tier are generally inconsistent No. 2 and No. 3 WRs, while RBs in this tier can often be pass-catchers or backups stepping in for injured or benched starters.
• WRs provided a greater ROI than RBs below $4,000. Targets and receptions are relatively predictable stats, and since DraftKings is a full-PPR site, finding WRs in this range slated to get a good amount of targets generally leads to good value.
• Other positions had extremely minimal sample sizes in the $8,500-$8,900 tier, but there were 30 WRs in this range in 2015, or 1.76 per week. These WRs delivered, posting one of the best value scores of any position in any salary range above $5,000.

Cash Game Value

Scores needed to finish in the money will vary weekly, but generally, if your lineup scores three points per $1,000, you'll reach 150 points, which is usually good enough to place in a 50/50 league or win just over half of your head-to-heads.

• It's hard to compare the higher salary ranges since WRs have a larger sample size than the other positions, but once we get into the "meat" of the salary ranges ($6,000-$7,400), we can see that WRs are superior options to RBs in terms of returning at least three points per $1,000.
• There were 294 WRs who hit 3x value in 2015, or 17.3 per week.

Of the 294 WRs who hit 3x value:

• the average spread was 0.80 (in contrast to QBs and RBs, who are favorites on average), the average over/under was 45.2, and the average team total was 22.2.
• 47.6 percent were favorites, 43.1 percent were at home, and 30.3 percent had team totals of 24 and above. WRs also contrasted from QBs in RBs in that more than half of their 3x games came as underdogs and on the road.
• the average receiving line was 6.8 receptions, 101.8 yards, and 0.9 TDs.
• 81.2 percent had at least five catches, 51.3 percent reached 100 yards (and the three-point bonus), and 69.0 percent scored at least one TD.

Tournament Value

You're generally looking to score 200 points or more to place highly in a tournament, and you'll usually need around 250 points to win the grand prize. If your lineup scores four points per $1,000, you'll have a score of 200, which is the value point I will use to examine tournament performance:

• The data here shows why it's important to pay up for WRs in tournaments. Despite it theoretically being tougher for a high-priced player to post as many points per dollar as a cheaper player, WRs above $8,500 scored four or more points per $1,000 at a higher rate than nearly all positions and salary tiers $5,000 and above.
• There were 177 WRs who hit 4x value in 2015, or 10.4 per week.

Of the 177 WRs who hit 4x value:

• the average spread was 0.48, the average over/under was 45.3, and the average team total was 22.4.
• 48.0 percent were at home, 45.3 percent were favorites, and 30.5 percent had a team total of 24 or more.
• the average receiving line was 7.1 receptions, 111.0 yards, and 1.1 TDs.
• 85.3 percent had at least five catches, 61.0 percent reached 100 yards (and the three-point bonus), 78.5 percent had at least one TD, and 27.7 percent had multiple TDs.

Individual WR Value

• Remember, the sample includes only WRs who were projected to score 9.0 or more, which is why we see some random names mixed in at the top -- guys who were undervalued in certain games based on their projected volume alone.
• The rest of the top of the list consists mainly of No. 1 WRs who were undervalued in preseason ADP and found their salaries unable to catch up to their production for a while (Doug Baldwin, Brandon Marshall, Allen Robinson, Sammy Watkins, Steve L Smith etc.), and No. 2-type WRs on (in some cases surprisingly) efficient passing offenses (Michael Floyd, Tyler Lockett, Allen Hurns, Ted Ginn, Willie Snead, Eric Decker, etc.).
• Near the bottom of the list, we see WRs who had high expectations but suffered due to an injury to a key player on offense. Dez Bryant played most of the season with a foot injury, but his bigger issue was the absence of Tony Romo. T.Y. Hilton and Donte Moncrief started hot with Andrew Luck, but cooled off (after their salaries increased) with Matt Hasselback. Randall Cobb and Davante Adams started the season with high expectations, but couldn't function without Jordy Nelson to draw coverage.

Final Takeaways

When you're looking to pay up, WRs are generally your best bet, whether in cash games or GPPs. Unlike some of the other positions, you're not going to find WR value by chasing favorable Vegas odds, which appear to be already priced into their salary. Instead, accurately projecting volume is paramount for WRs, and a WR being able to secure at least five receptions is more often than not a prerequisite for a good ROI. Red zone targets are also key, as a WR needed a TD nearly 7-in-10 times just to hit 3x value.

4for4's DFS Subscription has all the tools you need to be a profitable cash game or GPP player: Lineup Generator with floor & ceiling projections, Stack Value Reports for all 2-, 3-, and 4-man stacks, site-specific cash game & GPP write-ups, defensive matchups to exploit, downloadable CSVs with salaries & projections, in-depth content, and more. Sign up here!

Appendix

Related Articles

• DFS Wide Receiver Strategy: FanDuel 2015 Year in Review
• DFS Running Back Strategy: FanDuel 2015 Year in Review
• DFS Running Back Strategy: DraftKings 2015 Year in Review
• DFS Quarterback Strategy: DraftKings 2015 Year in Review
• DFS Quarterback Strategy: FanDuel 2015 Year in Review
• DFS Playbook 2016: Wide Receiver Strategy
• DFS Big Game Profiles:Wide Receivers
• ​The Definitive Guide to Stacking on FanDuel
• The Definitive Guide to Stacking on DraftKings
• Leveraging Weekly Player Consistency in NFL DFS
• Vegas Odds Will Give You an Edge in Your Fantasy Football Draft
• Yes, You Should Be Using Zero RB in 2016