2022 Fantasy Football Best Ball Positional Upside

by Preston White
2022 Fantasy Football Best Ball Positional Upside

Recently, I took a look at the win rates by position for Underdog’s Best Ball Mania 2. The idea behind it was to see how often certain positional allocations, i.e. 2 QB vs 3 QB, made it to the playoffs.

I wanted to take this one step further to explore ceiling cases for these positional allocations.

Before we dive in, be sure to use our sign-up link for a free bonus upon first deposit over at Underdog Fantasy.

2022 Fantasy Football Best Ball Positional Upside

The Process

As I said, the main focal point is to examine each position's ceiling cases. Certain builds could come with an extremely high ceiling but could have a lower median case.

This would ultimately lead to lower playoff advance rates. Therefore, I decided to look at total points across the season to better identify high upside builds.

2022 F6P Draft Cheat Sheet

I did so by looking at the top-50 scoring rosters for each set. This essentially is a 99.99th percentile outcome for these builds. By also utilizing the top-50 rosters, it eliminates the immediate outlier, which would be the top overall scoring roster.

Hopefully, this data becomes more useful given BBM3’s new payout structure. This year, the top-scoring roster from the regular season will win $1 million. Hence the need to look at extreme ceiling cases.

Quarterbacks

DraftedAverage ScoreTop-50 AvgTop-50 MaxTop-50 Min
11496.821756.731865.461714.66
21539.471989.512095.521963.02
31531.561996.472225.441949.54
41513.271844.931890.681816.98
51485.811730.211899.921676.3

The data for each position contains the overall average score, as well as the average score of the top-50 teams. This will correspond to the number of each position a team has taken.

For instance, teams that drafted only two quarterbacks scored on average 1539.47 points. In addition, the maximum and minimum scores are included in the top-50. This is essentially the top-scoring team (maximum) and the 50th-best-scoring team (minimum).

Looking at the data, the first thing we have for quarterbacks is that despite some people's belief, there really isn't any upside in taking only one quarterback. Ceiling case or median case, it's seemingly always better to take at least a second one.

Really no matter how you view it, it was at least better to take four quarterbacks than one single quarterback. That really just comes down to the volatility in the position.

Consider Josh Allen, who has finished as the QB1 overall the past two seasons. Over those two seasons, Allen has averaged 3.5 games which less than 20 points.

Anyways, clearly, the way to go is with two or three quarterbacks in a non-superflex type of draft. It's where the upside (and floor) is at.

Running Backs

DraftedAverage ScoreTop-50 AvgTop-50 MaxTop-50 Min
31508.371809.762033.381720.82
41525.841956.892095.521918.26
51536.941986.132093.001957.00
61539.611977.072225.441935.56
71536.721907.442005.301865.46
81523.141798.891913.481745.24

My first observation with the running backs is that teams that drafted only three running backs did have some decent upside. Although, it's hard to gain much from it as it's a relatively small sample. There could be upside, or these could be non-repeatable outliers.

Despite posting below-average win rates, teams with four running backs actually had some upside. They took a hit in terms of their average outcome, but they proved to have relatively similar upside to teams with five or six running backs.

It seems as if the sweet spot here is with those five and six running back builds. Both posted the best ceiling cases, and average cases, making them the best combination of upside and floor.

On the other hand, teams with seven running backs maintained a solid floor, but they were limited in terms of upside. The upside we want is with primarily five and six running backs, but I'm not out on four running back builds.

Wide Receivers

DraftedAverage ScoreTop-50 AvgTop-50 MaxTop-50 Min
41473.211704.98521831.821635.68
51508.4671816.9841916.441773.34
61536.931933.49282050.041887.6
71539.421974.73442225.441933.92
81537.111974.63682071.881946.64
91531.831965.53922095.521935.92
101524.861910.74162058.841871.86
111502.581732.321848.181669.94

It is pretty clear the sweet spot for wide receivers comes with the six to ten range. However, the upside is derived from the teams that drafted seven to nine wide receivers.

More and more data has lent itself to indicate that we may not need ten, or even nine wide receivers. While nine wide receivers did have the second-highest score overall, teams with seven and eight wide receivers had better-repeated success.

All in all, I think the upside is with builds of seven or eight wide receivers. Although, I'm not opposed to mixing in nine wide receivers too.

Tight Ends

DraftedAverage ScoreTop-50 AvgTop-50 MaxTop-50 Min
11508.561831.091937.421777.00
21532.181991.392225.441957.00
31540.231992.762095.521957.18
41531.891873.082023.881823.76

Surprisingly, the average was relatively consistent among teams with one to four tight ends. However, one tight end teams took the biggest hit in terms of ceiling.

Going back to the one quarterback issue as well, there's just no upside in only taking one player for a onesie position. You're automatically sacrificing one week of points during their bye week.

And from looking at the other positions, it's clear you're not gaining anything by taking a seventh running back or tenth wide receiver. There's just really no need to take only one tight end or quarterback.

Continuing on, teams with four tight ends seem to be rather skewed for their upside cases. They had a few high-end outliers, but in general, the ceiling isn't that great.

Really the prime range to target is two or three tight ends. That's where the upside is at for the tight end position.


Check out more of our Fantasy Football Best Ball content!

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow us on social media

A Six Pack of Fantasy Sports

Copyright © 2022 Fantasy Six Pack.