Share this article:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone

mikeevans

As I’ve been going through my RB model a name that consistently ranks in the top 3, almost no matter which variables I add in or take out of the model, is Jordan Matthews. On the flip side, one name that consistently hovers outside the top five WRs in this class is Mike Evans. This is a draft agnostic model, so at some point I’ll end up addressing the huge disparity that’s likely to exist in their draft slots, but it’s interesting nonetheless. It also makes me wonder if we weren’t too lenient on Evans to hand him the title in our bracket contest.

I thought I would take a look at them by looking at games where they faced common opponents, as I’ve done with a few other pairs of prospects. As you can see from the table below, Matthews kind of dominated Evans.

NAME Avg AGE RECS YDS YPR TDS MSYDS MSYDSWINS YDSWINS WINSOS
JORDAN MATTHEWS 20.6 7.7 120.3 15.7 0.67 0.46 6 4 41
MIKE EVANS 19.5 6 66.3 11.1 0.17 0.25 0 2 32.5

Across the board Matthews posted better numbers than Evans and the only saving grace for Evans is that he was on average a year younger than Matthews when facing the opponents. But the funny thing is that even on the number that you would expect Evans to dominate – touchdowns – Matthews has a comfortable lead.

The table below will show each of the individual box scores if you’re into that kind of thing. I should mention that when I do an exercise like this I’m not thinking about whether I will move Matthews ahead of Evans in my final rankings. I’m really just trying to decide how much I like Matthews as a late value. At this point it looks like Matthews will be available in the 1.05-1.10 range so I’m just trying to figure out which of the guys in that range I like the most.

NAME SEAS OPP Avg AGE REC RECYDS RECTD MSYDS SOS WINYDS WINMSYDS
JORDAN MATTHEWS 2012 Florida 20.26 8 131 1 0.55 6 X X
JORDAN MATTHEWS 2012 Auburn 20.28 3 46 0 0.27 18 X
JORDAN MATTHEWS 2012 Mississippi 20.33 9 153 1 0.55 46 X X
JORDAN MATTHEWS 2012 Missouri 20.24 9 91 0 0.44 47 X
JORDAN MATTHEWS 2013 Mississippi 21.13 10 178 1 0.59 38 X X
JORDAN MATTHEWS 2013 Missouri 21.24 7 123 1 0.36 74 X X
MIKE EVANS 2012 Florida 19.06 7 60 0 0.3 6
MIKE EVANS 2012 Auburn 19.20 5 80 0 0.25 18 X
MIKE EVANS 2012 Mississippi 19.14 8 105 0 0.54 46
MIKE EVANS 2012 Missouri 19.27 8 99 1 0.24 47 X
MIKE EVANS 2013 Mississippi 20.16 4 46 0 0.13 38
MIKE EVANS 2013 Missouri 20.29 4 8 0 0.04 74

Subscribe for a constant stream of league-beating articles available only with a Premium Pass.

Share this article:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
3 comments
gebick
gebick

Jon, have you reconciled the trade-off between market share being driven by a team having more/fewer viable options vs. a guy simply being so good that his team "elects" to get him the ball most?  For example, let's say team A has 4 great WRs, and team B has 1.  The guy who plays for team B "should" get higher market share, even if he isn't a great player (they have to throw it to someone).  While the best guy who plays for team A could be open every play, but the QB/system spreads the ball to other open guys (since they are all great).  Or is that the reason for the 30% threshold?  And guys who go higher than that may be a result of thinner competition?  Any thoughts?


Thanks, and your work is great!  You are changing the fantasy game.

Mad Wren
Mad Wren

These are very interesting. At some point, I'm going to have to reconcile the Matthews-Adams-Robinson logjam in my drafts, and it's proving to be a very tough call. 

zjdlmt
zjdlmt

Your RB model has Jordan Matthews in the top 3? Damn, that guy is good.