Introduction
Hey Friends, I’m back with part 2 of this mini series on what the field has been doing in Best Ball Mania over the past 3 years. In the last Formula article, I focused on the wide receiver position and visualized the importance of having strong wide receiver rooms in best ball tournaments. In this piece, we are going to look at the other side of the coin for the non-onesie positions and run back the analysis on the running back builds.
A reminder on the methodology. We’ll start by examining the frequency of RB selections, then layer on draft capital expenditure buckets for BBMII, BBMIII, and BBMIV. Using Spike Week’s draft capital curve, I categorized drafts into 20% buckets, ranging from the top 80th to 100th percentile (tier 5) to the bottom 0 to 20th percentile (tier 1) for that given year. Additionally, we’ll analyze advance rates for each build by draft capital bucket. For the purposes of this study, we are going to ignore the “advance rate is inherently a flawed statistic because we aren’t playing to advance, and so on and so forth” conversation, shake hands, agree it’s something to be discussed for another day, and leverage it as the commonly understood metric that has some utility when evaluating strategies and draft structures. Keeping it simple is a great place to start one’s analysis and I am excited to share my results. Let’s get going!
Best Ball Mania II
In BBMII, the average number of running backs selected was 5.16. In this tournament there were a variety of running back rooms being built, with the most common builds included 5 running backs, followed by 4 and 6.
There were two pockets of structural edge in BBMII, with advance rates well above the base 16.67% expectation. The first pocket is what I call the running back believers. The pocket in the upper middle of the matrix performed well. These drafters invested in running backs and were rewarded in a wide receiver environment that was also fruitful in later rounds. There was a limit to this, as the top tier of running back investment was disastrous. The second pocket of structural edge was in the bottom right corner. The Zero Running Back structure (7 or 8 running backs and tier 1 or 2 draft capital), which was being drafted at a ~2% rate, had some of the best advance rates in the tournament. The most extreme version of the structure, which included 8 running backs at the lowest two tiers, was drafted at ~0.22% and had advance rates north of 19%.
Best Ball Mania III
Moving to BBMIII, the average number of running backs selected increased to 5.44. In this tournament a shift towards a more volume approach to the running back position can be seen in the change in the distribution. 4 running back builds dropped in frequency quite a bit which was directly pushed into 6 and 7 running back teams. Running back builds were starting to converge, as 5 and 6 running back builds made up ~79% of teams in the tournament, compared to ~72% in the year prior. Our favorite structure, Zero RB, grew in frequency to ~3.5% but was still quite uncommon.
The advance rate shape was incredibly clear. Minimal running back investment while drafting a greater number was dominant. Leaning into the shifting wide receiver (or away from running backs) market benefited drafters, even if it was uncomfortable. The scoring environment in this season allowed for zero RB drafters to dominate and there were multiple middle and late round running backs that drove drafters to success. Those that had been singing the high praises of Zero RB were vindicated and many who had not believed were starting to see the light.
Best Ball Mania IV
In BBMIV, the average number of running backs selected stayed pretty stable, with an average of 5.47 wide receivers per team. Even though the average was stable, the market continued to converge on 5 or 6 running back builds, increasing the frequency of those builds to 83% of the drafting population. After such a great year, Zero RB increased as well. We saw many drafters doing it through 6 running back builds (~17.4% vs ~15.25% in the prior year), as that was the optimal in BBMIII, but we saw no growth in the more extreme 7 and 8 running back version, as we saw those stay constant at ~3.4%.
There were two clear pockets of structural edge in BBMIV, similar-ish to what we saw in BBMII. In this season, we saw the extremes be the structural edge. Teams with hammer running backs, Tier 5 capital spent with 3 through 6 running backs selected, were above advance rate plays. While this is largely driven by Christian McCaffrey’s legendary season, these drafters used their elite running back room to create a competitive advantage over their competitors. On the flip side, Zero RB was back to its normal behavior, giving drafters a structural edge and those that pushed it the furthest were rewarded the biggest. Drafters in the middle, keeping their capital buckets balanced, had mid advance rates.
Takeaway
In the last post we learned that buying wide receivers early and often is requisite to play the game but how you manage your detours is up to you. It is evident that the running back position can offer a structural edge for savvy drafters that find the pockets of value in that season. Additionally, the field seems to be converging on the central builds yet the “fringe” structures have proven to have a fair amount of juice when applied correctly. I personally will not be seeking balance this year when building my running back rooms. My goal will be to allocate running back draft capital as a point of differentiation and properly within the bounds of the game, wide receivers always are first priority, to create a competitive advantage on my competitors. Thanks for reading this study and stay on the lookout for more data driven content coming soon!
