By Subvertadown
Tagged under
Accuracy , Expectations , Kicker , Understanding StatisticsWhile making all my kicker model improvements, I have had my eye on this particular accuracy number. A correlation coefficient of 0.3 is sometimes considered an unofficial "cut-off" for what is reliably predictable. You'll see why below.
There is no fantasy position with "good" predictability. A simple scatterplot shows how frequently busts occur for a more predictable position. Despite the already-high level of randomness in fantasy, kicker rankings have historically been the least accurate. I have measured other ranking sources for some years-- Most sources yield a projection accuracy of 0.15, and the best ones reach 0.20-ish, on average. Well below 0.30. (In comparison, RB1 and QB reach predictability in the >0.35 range. The other poor-predictability outlier is WR1, floating around 0.25.) My ambition with improving kicker accuracy is to make it even more fantasy-worthy than WR1. And ideally above 0.30.
The good news is I think I've nearly cracked it; but the bad news is people won't always notice it. There are 3 reasons that accuracy improvements are not obvious:
fantasy randomness plagues all positions, so 0.30 is still "bad" (this is gambling folks! That's why I have a kicker wall of shame).
You can still end up picking my duds, even during an otherwise good-accuracy week.
Ranking accuracies will fluctuate, week-to-week.
This 3rd point is what I want to show you today. Example: Although I had a good 0.45 accuracy in 2021 week 5, my week 4 accuracy was almost 0 (therefore "random"-- 4 of my 8 picks were bad). So let's ask "how often does that happen?"
Here is your answer, in the form of a smoothed histogram:
My model (applied historically), yellow, yields a correlation accuracy that is negative-or-near-zero in less than 10% of weeks. Meanwhile, the blue curve represents "other sources" (with an optimistic average of 0.23 I can explain the details in the comments). As you can see, a less-accurate model will be "around zero or negative" in up to 20% of the weeks.
And there is your partial explanation of why a 0.3 average correlation is desirable: we hope to ensure that only 5% of weeks will have worse-than-random correlation. An accuracy of 0.20 is not enough to guarantee that. But 0.30 can apparently come close.
Tagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Accuracy , Current SeasonTagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Current Season , Accuracy , ExpectationsTagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Current Season , Expectations , Updates / NewsTagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Current SeasonTagged under
Current Season , Updates / News