NFL Draft 2016: Understanding the concept of WR Return on Investment

Link to Table of WR Return on Investment article detail

Return on Investment or “ROI” is a fundamental principal we all use everyday.  Whether in our entertainment choices, when selecting a restaurant or in managing our actual personal financial investments, everyone want to have the maximum pay off while reducing the risk to a minimum.

During this NFL draft season, the wide receiver position is one in which the perception of value is varied: Some value tall receivers, some precise route runners, while others focus on speed.   At the end of the day the true value from a wide receiver is based on reception yards.  And while many other factors outside of the WR contribute to his success in generating yards (QB performance, offensive system, competition, etc), a player who proves his ability to catch the ball when targeted and generate yards upon each reception likely has a skill set that can translate over to the NFL.

What is ROI?  - Return on Investment for WRs is based on measuring how much better a player is than his teammates at producing receptions compared to target opportunities and yards compared to reception opportunities.  The aggregate of these percentages gives us a player’s ROI.  And while one player may be in a run first offense, another in a pass first and another in a balanced system, volume does not benefit the WR in this analysis as all statistics are based on rates.

WR statistical data is isolated for this analysis (that is,RB and TE statistics are thrown out from the sample set).

Let’s look at Laquon Treadwell, who has been seen by many media outlets as the WR1 for the 2016 draft:

For Ole Miss: He was targeted 122 times and caught 83 balls for 1165 yards; a very solid body of work.  Many would calculate his market share (rec yards/team rec yards) of 28.5% and catch rate (recs/targets) of 68% and wrap up the statistical analysis. Now taking a look at it from a lens of his percentage of contribution from a team standpoint, we see he was responsible for 35.2% of WR targets (122/347 total WR targets), 35.3% of WR receptions  (84/235 total WR receptions) and 33.7% of WR rec yards (1165/3460 total WR yards).  So in each category he represents about a third…so what? 

The interesting thing is what happens when you consider the first two categories as baselines for the next.  So, if Treadwell received 35.2% of team WR targets for any return on that investment in spending those plays on him, he should at LEAST return 35.2% of team receptions.  Any less and those excess targets might be better distributed to WRs with higher ROIs.  In the case of Treadwell, his Target to Reception return rate of 0.5% ([Reception % less Target Percentage]/ Reception %)  is positive, but as you will see from examining the data, it does not eclipse the highest levels for WRs. 

Using a similar calculation to compare his Reception to Yards return rate, we see a negative number of <4.7%>.   What does this mean?  For his share of receptions, he left 4.7% or 163 of Ole Miss’ reception yards on the field. 

In order to calculate an overall ROI number, we simply add the Reception Conversion number to the Yardage Conversion figure which in this case for Treadwell, is negative at <4.2%>. 

In comparing the 3 ratios for ROI calculation side by side in actual sequence (that is, targets, receptions and yards), a  visual graph of a line with a positive slope from left to right shows the WR improves at each step in the sequence.  If, he generates a higher reception rate than his target rate and a higher yard accumulation rate than his reception rate, this progressive trait is considered “elite”(only for the sake of differentiation, and not for Twitter argument’s sake).  Given his declining slope, Treadwell is classified as “Did Not Qualify” (DNQ) for “Elite” designation.  This is not a definitive statement on the player.  ROI  is not a prediction tool, it is an analytical tool to help when watching video.

How do his ROI figures compare to his teammates?  Did his QB have strong accuracy numbers (Treadwell’s QB corp completed 67.7% of their passes, 13.7% above the FBS average) that may have contributed to inflated targets/reception?    To consider this, we exclude his stats from his teams reception completion and see his personal completion percentage was  only 0.7% better than the rest of the receiving corps.  This tells he wasn’t as huge part of his QB’s completion ratio so his QB was likely quite accurate or he was not significantly much more successful than his receiver teammates.  Does this mean he’s not WR1?  No, it is just a gauge of things to look for when reviewing other numbers and watching his actual game video.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is Corey Coleman, formerly of Baylor who went for 121 targets, caught 74 passes for 1,363 yards.  His catch rate of 61.2% is materially less than that of Treadwell’s. Performing the same calculations as above we find a Target rate of 35.9%, Reception rate of 36.6% and Yardage rate of 38.7%.  Given what you’ve just learned, you can see the ascending pattern in the numbers and we know that merits an “Elite” designation.  Based on the above numbers, CC generates a ROI of 7.76% driven by a Target to Reception return rate of 2.0% (compared to 0.5% for Treadwell) and a Reception to Yard return rate of 5.7% (compared to Treadwell’s, negative mark).  All this with quarterback play that was barely 0.7% above the 59.4% average for this exercise.  Of course, if we exclude CC’s targets and receptions, we see his completion percentage is 3.1% better than his teammates.   

Because Coleman has a higher ROI (7.76%) compared to Treadwell, can we conclude the former is better than the latter?  I wouldn’t do that, at least not based on the numbers alone.   

While looking over the numbers in the spreadsheet, please keep in mind the following interesting points:

Although WMU’s Daniel Braverman’s Catch Rate (Rec/Targets) was higher at 76.8%, Demarcus Ayers of Houston had the highest Catch Rate for an Elite ROI Trend WR.  76.0%

Despite a shaky QB situation at UVA, Canaan Severin  had the highest exclusive Catch Rate (comparing his catch rate to his completion percentage excluding his stats) at 36.8% better than his teammates.  Troy’s Teddy Rubin was best in the Elite ROI Trend class at 22.4%

The highest Target volume belonged to Buckeye Michael Thomas who received 60.9% of all WR targets for his team.  Shockingly, there were a total of 4 who eclipsed the 60.0% mark:  Thomas, Stoshak (FAU), Sharpe (UMass) and Boyd (PITT).   Cincinnati’s Johnnie Horton and Tennessee’s Marquez North each received only 6.4% amd 6.8% of their teams targets, respectively, yet were invited to the NFL combine.

The players with the highest Return on Investment numbers AND Elite ROI trends include (players with > 38 receptions per SD analysis):

1. Leonte Carroo, RU:  44.83% The author’s personal favorite, based on qualifying criteria, he is the top ROI WR in 2015.
2. Tre’ Parmalee,KU: 41.41% - This pedigree player’s dad has a nice NFL career, but he has generated no pre-draft buzz.
3. Will Fuller, ND: 37.84% - Lumpiness in his numbers (1.2% Target Reception ROI , 36.6% Rec Yard ROI and Catch Rate > Team of only 1.8%)aligns with the media reports of issues of drops but being a burner with homerun play potential.
4. Teddy Ruben, Troy: 36.21% - Tough player who, despite being 5’7” was a bulldog of a high school QB.  It would be interesting to see if he gets a shot as UDFA>
5. Deandre Reaves, MAR:  30.74% - At 5’10” 179lbs, Reaves combines his solid WR skills with kick return experience making him an interesting option. 
6. Devin Lucien, ASU:  30.32% - Graduate transfer from UCLA had a breakout season in a big way working himself into the Day 3 conversation.
7. Jehu Chesson, MICH:  26.86% - 6’3” 200 lbs, Chesson has a breakout year in 2015 and could be an interesting UFDA or even late Day 3 selection.
8. Trevor Davis, CAL:  20.66% - The tall, thin receiver hooked up with former teammate, QB Jared Goff for a 72.7% catch rate, a testimonial to the skill of both players.
9. Josh Doctson, TCU:  20.54% - The former walk on is as balanced as one could be as both ROI components are basically identical at 10.2% & 10.3%.  He has the ability to catch the ball consistently and can generate yards after the catch as well as go long. In the argument for WR1.
10. Rashard Higgins, CSU:  18.79% - Proving he can lose his star QB to the NFL and still generate over 1,000 yards in the industry, “Hollywood” Higgins may be a Sunday afternoon fixture.