DraftKings Running Back Pricing & Performance Review

The salary cap influences every decision you make in daily fantasy, yet there hasn't been much big-picture research done that analyzes player performance relative to the cap. For every cap dollar you spend, what is the return on investment? Do returns vary based on position, price point, or even individual player?

I compiled data on how every player performed relative to their FanDuel and DraftKings salaries in 2014. In the coming weeks, I will be taking a position-by-position look at player performance relative to the FanDuel and DraftKings salary caps. Links to each report can be found below as they become available.

FanDuel Pricing & Performance Reviews: QB, RB, WR, TE, K, D/ST

DraftKings Pricing & Performance Reviews: QB, RB, WR, TE, D/ST

Editors Note: If you open a new account with FanDuel with a minimum $10 deposit, you’ll receive a free one-year subscription to 4for4! Details here.

DraftKings Running Back Value vs. Other Positions

Let's take a look at DraftKings running backs. Table 1 below shows the average value¹ returned in 2014 by running backs compared to other positions²:

The best value at running back could be found in the $6,500-$8,900 price range last year. At $9,000 and above, diminishing returns set in, as the (albeit small) sample of 17 running backs combined to return 2.20x value, which is less than any $5,000 increment in the $6,500-$8,900 range. That 2.20x value at $9,000-plus for running backs also lagged behind the 35 quarterbacks (2.59x) and nine wide receivers (3.00x) at that price range.

All signs point to the $6,500-$8,900 price range being a sweet spot for running back value on DraftKings, but value per game is merely a piece of the puzzle; how consistently a player can return value is also critical to fully understanding the level of risk involved with a roster selection.

DraftKings Running Back Cash Game Value

The percentage of time a player "hit value" is a good way to measure player consistency versus the salary cap. Since you generally need to score around 150 points on DraftKings to win cash games, I calculated the percentage of time players hit 3x value. The results are shown in Table 2 below.

The $6,500-$8,900 price range indeed looks like a fruitful price range to select running backs from, as backs in this price range edged both quarterbacks and wide receivers in four of the five $5,000 increments within this range. Overall, 42 of 119 (36 percent) running backs in the $6,500-$8,900 range hit 3x value, while only 60 of 190 (32 percent) wide receivers and 74 of 237 (31 percent) quarterbacks did so.

I've already touched on running backs offering little value at $9,000 and above, but running backs under $6,500 also struggle to hit 3x value relative to other positions. Running backs particularly struggled in the $5,000-$6,400 range, hitting 3x value only 47 of 195 times (24 percent), which lagged behind quarterbacks (96 of 240, 40 percent) and wide receivers (98 of 328, 30 percent).

Running backs in the lower price ranges (under $5,000) also struggled to return value, but the sample is somewhat skewed by the large amount of running backs at or near minimum price who wouldn't have been considered startable, as discussed in footnote no. 2. I will discuss cheaper backs in the Individual Running Back Performance vs. DraftKings Salary Cap section below.

DraftKings Running Back Tournament Value

Table 3 below displays how often players hit 4x value on DraftKings in 2014.

Whereas the $6,500-$8,900 price range was a sweet spot for running back peak cash game value, the range shrinks to $6,500-$7,400 for running back peak tournament value. Fifteen of 66 (23 percent) of running backs priced between $6,500 and $7,400 hit 4x value, compared to 15 of 82 (18 percent) wide receivers and 11 of 122 (nine percent) quarterbacks.

Under $6,500, running backs hit 4x value only 20 of 195 times (10 percent); a significantly lower rate than wide receivers (51 of 328, 16 percent) and quarterbacks (37 of 240, 15 percent).

While 4x value will usually leave you in the money in a tournament, it took an average score of around 250 to take down a Millionaire Maker. Table 4 below shows how often players hit 5x value.

Hitting 5x value is a tough feat; it was done by running backs only 75 times, or 4.4 times per week, last season. The main thing to note in Table 4 is that running backs hit 5x value a bit less than wide receivers at almost every price point, indicating you should tend to forgo running backs in the flex slot when trying to blow the lid off with your lineup.

Individual Running Back Performance vs. DraftKings Salary Cap

A list of the average value returned of all running backs in 2014 (minimum six games played, 10 DKP/Game) is shown below in Table 5.

Seven of the top 10 backs in Table 5 had an average salary of under $5,000. Because of the huge range between maximum and minimum price on DraftKings, running backs who emerge with prominent roles usually see their price take a while to adjust up because it is starting at a lower point than it would on a site like FanDuel, where the maximum salary is similar to DraftKings (~$10,000) but the minimum is much higher ($4,500).

Of all the top-10 backs, only LeVeon Bell had a recent track record of success coming into the season. All the other backs were expected to be backups, but gained prominent roles and thus provided more value than established players whose prices had already adjusted to their true level of production. Particularly on DraftKings, running backs who are slated to see decent volume at or near minimum price tend to provide excellent value.

Footnotes

1. Value = Fantasy points per one thousand salary dollars, or [fantasy points/ [salary / 1,000].

2. The sample size is in Appendix 1 below. For quarterbacks, only starts were used. For running backs, wide receivers, and tight ends, the challenge was eliminating minimum-priced players from the sample who wouldn't have been considered as fantasy starters, such as fullbacks or wide receivers who played only on special teams. Ultimately, I settled on removing all players at the minimum price who registered zero points. This method isn't perfect, as some players who wouldn't have been considered viable at minimum price remain if they registered any stats, but it was the most consistent way to eliminate many of the irrelevant data points at minimum salary while keeping the research process sane.