As we get ready for our fantasy drafts, rookies will be among the most exciting players to pick. Which Jones should you take, Julius or Kevin? How about which Williams, Roy or Reggie? While I'm not going to tell you which rookies will do well-I'd like to see when they're going to do well.

Remember LaDainian Tomlinson's first season? He averaged 21.0 Fantasy Points/Game (FP/G) in September, 12.2 FP/G the next two months, and just 9.9 FP/G the final quarter of the season. Many assumed that his decline coincided with him hitting the proverbial rookie wall. How about Andre' Davis? "Taking opponents by surprise," the Browns rookie scored fifty points the first five weeks of the 2002 season. Yet "defenses must have figured him out," as he couldn't even score thirty points the last eleven weeks. We've all heard these explanations when a quick-starting rookie falls off his hot pace.

What about William Green? In his rookie year he had six games of at least ten fantasy points-and they all came in the last seven weeks. He had "proved himself" as the season wore on, and the Browns began to lean on him for their playoff push. What about Marvin Harrison, who scored over seventy percent of his points in the second half of his rookie year? Well certainly, the game had begun to "slow down" for Harrison, and he was finally figuring out opposing defenses.

This got me to wondering-which cliché holds water? Do rookies get better or worse as the season goes on? Fortunately, we've got more than enough data to find out. Let's start with the running backs. Here's what I did:

• Find the weekly stats of all rookie RBs for the last nine years (from 1995-2003)



• Include only those who ranked in the top thirty in fantasy points, and played at least twelve games.



• Using a weighted average system (as described by Doug Drinen here), conclude as to whether talented rookie RBs perform better early or late in the year.

Why use a weighted average system, instead of simply first and second half splits? First half splits don't assign any more weight to what happens in week one, than to what happens in week seven. Second half splits have the same problem. A player that declines steadily throughout the year might have better first half splits; but someone that has two huge games in weeks six and seven, will show similar splits. In order to capture the true feeling of how the season progressed, here's the formula used:

Weighted Average =

1*(Game 1 FPs) + 2*(Game 2 FPs) + 3*(Game 3 FPs) + ... + 16*(Game 16 FPs) 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + 16

This weighted average would thus give more weight to later games, and help solve the problem caused by first and second half splits.

To determine how back-loaded (or front-loaded) a season was, we simply calculate the Weighted Average FP/G minus the normal FP/G. As Doug Drinen did, we'll call this the E/L (Early/Late) factor. A positive E/L factor means a player is a fast finisher; a negative E/L factor is for strong starters. Obviously, the higher the number in either direction, the faster the finisher (or stronger the starter) truly was.

Example

The chart below shows the sample points distribution for a fictitious rookie. All sixteen weeks are shown, along with his fantasy points for each week.

This rookie has scored 200 FPs in the season, averaging 12.5 FP/G. It's clear that he improved as the season went on-what the E/L factor tries to do is capture by how much did he improve. Using the formula described above, this player scores 15.4 Adjusted Fantasy Points per game. When you subtract his regular FP/G from his Adjusted FP/G, you are left with 2.9 FP/G. The E/L factor for this rookie is thus 2.9. Remember, positive E/L ratios indicate fast finishes, while negative E/L factors show strong starts.

Running Back Results

There's not much weight behind the "hitting the rookie wall" philosophy. Of the thirty-two RBs that met the qualifications above:

• Twenty-three had a positive E/L ratio, signaling strong second halves. Of these, fifteen were of 1.00 or above. The average was 1.45



• Nine had negative E/L ratios, with just two of -1.00 or below. The average was -0.55.



• Overall, the thirty-two RBs combined for a resounding average E/L ratio of 0.89 per player.
  
  
  • If we limit this to just the past five seasons, the average E/L factor increases to 1.09. If we count just the last three years, it rises again to 1.32. If we make it only the last two, it jumps all the way to 2.52-based on the way Clinton Portis (4.07) and William Green (3.47) finished their rookie years.
  
  
  
  • If we limit this to RBs drafted in the first three rounds, the average E/L rate stays about the same-0.85. First or second round? 0.94. First round picks only? The E/L factor for them drops to 0.54. This isn't surprising-a first round pick is more likely to start immediately, and thus won't appear to finish as fast. For a later round pick, earning that starting job could take awhile.


• If you only care about "stud" RBs and recent history, consider this: Running backs drafted in the first two rounds for the past three years have an E/L factor of 0.96.



• How about counting only rookies that have finished in the top twenty since 1995? The E/L factor jumps to nearly one. Top 12? Makes it 1.17. Top 8? 1.39. Top five? 2.16.
  
  
  • This is a bit surprising. It says that the more points a rookie RB scores, the more skewed his stats will be towards late season success. Clinton Portis, Mike Anderson and Fred Taylor all started their rookie years as backups, but finished as stars. While that's not entirely accountable for the interesting result, it's certainly a large part of it.


• How about this: All rookie running backs that:
  
  
  • Were drafted in the past five seasons
  
  
  
  • Ranked in the top twenty-four their rookie years, and
  
  
  
  • Were first day draft picks (top three rounds)
    • That leaves just five players: Edgerrin James, Jamal Lewis, Clinton Portis, Anthony Thomas and LaDainian Tomlinson. Average Early/Late factor? 1.57.

Conclusions

• Rookie RBs generally score more points in the second half of the season than the first-don't give up on your rookie too early.



• The trend is getting stronger. In recent years, rookie point distribution is coming more towards the end of most seasons. Definitely, don't give up on your rookie too early.



• We would expect to see high draft picks have more consistent stats, while low draft picks might start to play and produce mid-season. While there are some stats to support this, the correlation isn't as strong as I would have predicted.

Wide Receiver Results

Using the same general idea, I applied this to Wide Receivers as well. All rookies since 1995 were included, provided they finished in the top sixty that season. This left us with thirty players.

• The average E/L factor was just 0.17 for WRs-an almost negligible number. Seventeen had positive E/L factors, two had zero E/L factors, and eleven performed better in the first half than the second.



• Eighty-percent of the rookie WRs had their Adjusted FP/G finish within one point of their regular FP/G. This continues to show that there wasn't a strong partiality towards late (or early) season heroics.
  • If we limit this to the past seven seasons, the E/L factor actually turns negative. For the last five years, the ratio becomes -0.25. Since 2001, the E/L factor has been -0.32. The only two players from 2003, Andre Johnson (-0.9 E/L) and Anquan Boldin (-0.5 E/L) both classify as strong starters.
  
  
  
  • Does the E/L factor change if we look at where the players were drafted? For players drafted in the first three rounds, the average rate is 0.22. (Remember, for all players it was 0.17). First two rounds? 0.16. First round picks? 0.22. Basically, there is very little correlation (if any) between draft pick and how your rookies FPs are distributed. Additionally, all players drafted in the top sixteen of the first round have an E/L of exactly…zero.
  
  
  
  • Rookies ranked in the top forty had a slightly larger E/L factor of 0.34. In the top thirty, it rises again to 0.52. In the top fifteen, there are just four players-with an E/L ratio of 0.28. A note about the top thirty: Six of those ten receivers were from either 1995 or 1996. Removing those rookies drops the E/L metric to 0.06.
  
  
  
  • The last seven years, Chris Chambers was the fastest finisher-he averaged 9.7 adjusted FP/G, and 8.9 regular FP/G.


• How about this: All rookie wide receivers that:
  • Were drafted in the past five seasons
    o Ranked in the top forty their rookie years, and
  
  
  
  • Were first day draft picks (top three rounds)
  
  
  
  • They had an Early/Late factor of…0.00. Additionally, none of the ten had an E/L factor greater than +/- 1.00.

Conclusions

• I think that last category (last five years, first three rounds, top forty) is the most relevant to current fantasy predictions. For the important players we profile, rookie WRs tend to be fairly consistent in their scoring. While running backs tend to improve as the season goes on, rookie WRs don't go up or down.



• It doesn't matter whether the rookie is a first round pick or not drafted at all. Draft status and how fantasy production is distributed are surprisingly unrelated.

And then what happened?

You may be wondering if how a player scored his fantasy points has any correlation to how many he'll score the next year. In short, the answer is essentially no. It shouldn't really bother you that Andre Johnson saw his production dip at the end of last season; likewise, Dom Davis' strong second half isn't a guarantee of future production. For those that are interested in all of the analysis, keep reading. For the rest of you, just know that rookies tend to be similar to veterans in at least one respect: When they scored their fantasy points isn't anywhere near as important as how many they scored.

I thought the best way to test this theory would be to correlate two numbers: a player's E/L factor and their change in FP/G in year two. These two numbers capture exactly what we're trying to see: Does a strong finish lead to improved play the next year (or vice versa)?

Of the thirty-two RBs in the study, twenty-eight of them had follow-up seasons. Domanick Davis hadn't yet had his, while Dominic Rhodes, Jamal Lewis and Robert Edwards missed the next year due to injury.

The correlation coefficient of E/L Factor and change in FP/G was -0.13. For those not familiar with that statistic, a negative correlation means that as the E/L factor increases (goes from strong starter to faster finisher), their FP/G in year N+1 decrease. However, -0.13 is essentially statistically insignificant. I think a more accurate study would be done if we tweak our data set to:

• Rookies from 1998-2002



• That started at least eight games the next year

This removes Olandis Gary (one game in 1999), Mike Anderson (seven games started in 2001), Ron Dayne (7 games started in 2001) and Travis Prentice (zero games started in 2001).

The remaining eleven RBs:

• Had an average E/L factor of 1.17.



• Averaged 12.5 FP/G their rookie year; 13.67 Adjusted FP/G



• Averaged 14.2 FP/G their sophomore years.

The correlation between these RBs E/L factors and their N+1 production was -0.21. Statistically speaking, that's still not worth much. There are only eleven people in the sample, and -0.21 isn't very strong. However, a negative correlation means that the stronger you finish, the less likely you are to improve in the following year. Exercise extreme caution with this: Travis Henry for instance, had the third lowest E/L factor-and he improved by more than anyone but Ricky Williams. While at first glance that might make you think fast starters are more apt to improve next season, Henry actually had a positive E/L factor. Remember, nine of the eleven players were fast finishers-Henry was just a little slower than most.

Conclusion

• How a rookie RB distributes his FPs in one year doesn't mean anything in regards to how many points he'll score the next season.

And then what happened? Part 2

Once again, let's look to the following year to see if any conclusions can be drawn for wide receivers. Of the thirty receivers, twenty-seven have had a follow up year to date (Sylvester Morris, Anquan Boldin, Andre Johnson have not). Those twenty-seven receivers had a correlation (comparing E/L factor to change in FP/G) of 0.12-which borders on being statistically irrelevant. In the RB comparison, we edited the list to only include players that started at least eight games the following year. Unlike RBs, wide receivers have much better chances to play well even if they're not starting. Instead of using games played to pare down our list, we're going to only include:

• Rookies from 1998-2002



• Rookies that averaged at least six points per game

That leaves us with eleven players. They

• Had an average E/L factor of 0.28



• Averaged 8.14 FP/G their rookie years



• Averaged 7.4 FP/G their second years

On average, they declined by 0.74 FP/G. It's become well known in the fantasy community that rookie receivers that perform well tend to slip the following year. The correlation coefficient between the Early/Late factor and difference in points per game in year N and year N+ 1 is just 0.14-not very significant. If it says anything, it says that players that are fast finishers might appear to be a bit more likely to hold value better the next year. It's interesting that this is the opposite of what the RB data said. For what it's worth, if you raise the limit to averaging at least seven points per game, the coefficient increases to 0.54. However, with just seven players in our sample size, I'm not sure a ton can be drawn from that.

Conclusions

• How a rookie WR distributes his FPs in one year doesn't really mean much in regards to how many points he'll score the next season.

Final Conclusions

• WRs had an average Adjusted FP/G of 7.74, compared to their average Regular FP/G of 7.57. That represented a 2.24% increase.



• RBs had an average Adjusted FP/G of 12.85, and a Regular FP/G of 11.97. That's an increase of 7.35%.
  • Those two factors show that productive rookie RBs are significantly faster finishers than their WR counterparts. Somewhat ironic, since RBs adjust quicker to the pro game, while receivers generally take at least a couple of years before they excel.


• Take a lot of the N+1 data with a grain of salt. There were small sample sizes and not terribly overwhelming results. I just included it because I'm sure several people would have e-mailed me asking if the data meant anything for the following year. As far as I can tell, it really doesn't.
  • Anquan Boldin and Andre Johnson really declined as the season went on. Domanick Davis really improved as the season went on. Neither probably means much for 2004.


• Don't give up on Kevin or Julius Jones this year-it's possible that they'll be "eased" into the offense. Additionally, players like Stephen Jackson, Chris Perry and especially Tatum Bell might not represent a ton of value early on, but could get more touches later in the season. Obviously for Jackson, that would assume a healthy Faulk to start 2004.



• The rookie WRs this year appear to be extremely talented. Reggie Williams, Rashaun Woods and Lee Evans appear to be in situations where they might start. Larry Fitzgerald and Roy Williams are great talents that look to start immediately. However, history shows not to wait too long for the rookies to show signs of life. Generally speaking, if you're not seeing something out of your rookie WR in the first half of the season, they're not going to turn it on in the second half. In the last seven years, only Chris Chambers has been able to start off real slow but still hold fantasy value.



• Don't forget an important fact about this study: This looks at the top rookies after the fact. Someone like Thomas Jones disappointed his rookie year, while Mike Anderson outperformed expectations by about 1400 yards. This study only looks at the top players once we know our rankings-thus, holding onto a bum RB won't magically turn him into gold.
  

If you have any questions or comments about this article, please shoot me an e-mail at [email protected].

Incredible thanks, as always, goes to Doug Drinen. The owner of www.pro-football-reference.com provided all the statistics you've seen today. Without his work or that site, this article simply could not have been written.