Ian Allan

A few weeks back, I posted a short column outlining some of tendencies of 100-yard games by running backs and wide receivers, as well as 300-yard passing days. I tossed out a few numbers showing that home-field advantage seemed to play a bigger role with running backs rather than in the passing game.

The numbers also suggest that the correlation between wins and losses is even stronger than with home vs. away. Wins and 100-yard rushing performances tend to go hand-in-hand. You don’t see many running backs going for 100 yards in losses. In fantasy terms, that tends to suggest that all other things being equal, you’re odds are better going with a running back who’s team is more likely to win. (Though you’re also bound to shoot yourself in the foot at times – some of those 7-point favorites lose, and some of those 7-point underdogs surprisingly win.)

Anyway, last week, one of the tech guys here dumped all of the 100- and 300-yard games into a sortable, manageable file. So now, rather than looking at just the 2009 season, we can look at every season for the last 30 years (we’ve now, in one file, got all of these numbers dating back to 1978, the year they went to the 16-game season).

The numbers are as follows:

For running backs:

Of the 3,483 100-yard rushing games, 1,902 were by home teams, versus 1,581 by players on the road. So under 55 percent for the home teams – an advantage, but not a huge number.

Look, however, at wins and losses. Of that same group, about three times as many were by players on teams that won their games – 2,585 vs. 891. (7 players ran for 100 yards in games that ended in ties.) That’s evidence that wins and 100-yard rushing games tend to be linked.


For receivers:

The correlations aren’t as strong. I’m seeing 2,367 by players for home teams, versus 2,241 for guys on the road – hardly any difference at all.

It’s also tighter for wins versus losses – 2,497 vs. 2,093 (with 19 in ties), or about 54 percent. That’s a much bigger difference than with the running backs, where we saw that three-to-one ratio. That tends to support the theory that in fantasy football, you’re better off trying to play the matchups at running back. You can get a big game from a lesser running back who’s team is beating up on an overmatched opponent. At wide receiver, though, you may be better off simply finding a couple of big-time players and sticking with them.


For quarterbacks:

The home-away and win-loss relationships take another step back with quarterbacks – at least in terms of 300-yard passing days.

Over the last 30 years, there’s been very little difference between quarterbacks playing at home (1,000 of those games) versus ones on the road (940). That’s a split of under 52-48.

And I see a similar kind of trend with wins and losses – 998 by quarterbacks whose teams won, versus 937 for losers (with 6 coming in ties). That makes sense to me. With a quarterback like Drew Brees or Peyton Manning, there seems to be games where they move out to a lead, causing them to pass less often in the second half. Quarterbacks who are down by a couple of scores, however, tend to start passing on every down, giving them a better chance of reaching 300 yards.


Overall, I think these numbers suggest that in fantasy football, the best position to change from week to week is running back. Give me a good NFL that’s playing a 2-11 doormat, and I like the odds of that team’s starting tailback going for 100 yards and getting in the end zone – even if it’s backup-type guy who’s never started a game. But I don’t think you can say the same with quarterbacks and wide receivers. There, I think you’re better off simply locking in on some good ones at your draft and sticking with them.

• Comments [0]

Readers' Comments

Add a Comment

Already a registered user? Please sign in to add comments.

To add comments, you must become a registered user of our site. To register, please click here.