In best ball, simply picking the right players is not realistic strategy. We also need to consider the implications of the no-transaction format.
A big part of that is roster construction. In other words, how many players at each position should we draft? It’s a simple question with a complicated answer for a couple of reasons.
First, our decisions should be dynamic to positional strength. If our QB1 is Josh Allen, he’s very likely to be the quarterback who counts in our lineup an overwhelming majority of weeks. In that scenario, waiting until later in the draft to select our QB2 and QB3 is correct.
Second, we need to account for the quirks in FFPC’s format. Tight ends get 1.5 points per reception, we are only required to start two WRs each week, and there are two FLEX spots for any skill player to start. That’s naturally going to result in more TEs being in optimal constructions — far more than we’re used to — and slightly fewer wideouts. For our full FFPC rankings specific to the format, click here.
In order to solve the question of positional allocation, we took a data-driven approach and looked at the last three years’ results, simulating nearly 100,000 teams in search of winning roster constructions. The results:
FFPC BEST BALL FORMAT
* 12-team leagues, 28-player rosters
* Full-PPR 1.5-PPR for TEs, otherwise standard scoring
* Starting lineup: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, TE, FLEX, FLEX, K, D
QUARTERBACKS
Recommendation: Take 3
Analysis: The data shows a significantly higher win rate (and top-three rate) when taking three QBs. Taking two or four QBs is also viable, with not much difference in win rates between those. Of course, when you take your QBs, and how many you take is dependent on draft capital. With a full-PPR format, taking three later-round QBs is certainly viable.
For example, some combination of Bo Nix (3.8 per-game rushing points last year), Kyler Murray (4.6), Malik Willis (6), Tyler Shough (3.3), Daniel Jones (3.5), and Fernando Mendoza (7.7% scramble rate, which would’ve ranked ninth at his position) is acceptable, as all are being drafted from the ninth round on. If we select our QB1 early, however, we can wait even longer on our QB2 and QB3. We would not want to draft Lamar Jackson early and then also take Caleb Williams — unless we were going with a 2-QB construction. But in reality, the ADPs of those players relative to value make that Lamar/Caleb construction untenable. On that same note, 4-QB builds should be saved for an entire room of late-round options.
In terms of optimal capital allocation, the data shows that taking a QB in the first five rounds is very clearly negative-EV. There’s just too much opportunity cost in a single-QB format.
RUNNING BACKS
Recommendation: Take 5-7
Analysis: The data shows that too many people are using 8-RB constructions even though that’s where the win and cash rates fall off. The rates for 5-, 6-, and 7-RB constructions are very close (and far more optimal), with a slight edge to fewer. The sample size on 5-RB constructions is the smallest, though it does show the best win rates.
Again, it’s important to track draft capital when deciding how many RBs to take. Teams that start with three RBs in the first three rounds can lean towards finishing their lineup with five RBs total. it’s also pertinent to keep the double-FLEX nature of FFPC in mind — it’s possible to start four RBs in any given week.
Overall, we’d note that teams that invested in RBs early fared the best in our simulations. Those builds also allowed them to expand the number of wideouts they took toward the 7-8 range, which is preferred (as highlighted below).
WIDE RECEIVERS
Recommendation: Take 6-8
Analysis: This is where FFPC’s format gets counterintuitive. In our Yahoo article, the data showed 7-8 WRs as optimal even though there are only 20 rounds. FFPC’s format is similar, but the data shows only 6-7 WRs as optimal. That’s due to the TE-premium scoring and double-flex, 2-WR starting lineups.
Be warned: it’s tempting to take a heap of WRs on FFPC, as they will look like the best values when “falling.” But letting our opponents build 8-, 9-, and 10-WR rosters will give us an edge as we pivot to TEs in that range (see below).
As with all positions, we need to remain cognizant of capital allocation. If we only draft one WR in the first five rounds, we should be looking to finish with seven or eight of them. But if we take 2+ in the first five rounds, we can live with just five or six wideouts.
TIGHT ENDS
Recommendation: Take 3-5
Analysis: This format awards 1.5 points for a tight end reception, and also allows us to start three tight ends through the double-flex. You’ll see this reflected in our FFPC-specific rankings. So, whereas other formats are optimal for 2-TE construction, it’s pivotal that we draft at least three in this format.
Note that our rankings are bullish on Juwan Johnson, T.J. Hockenson, Cade Otton, and Pat Freiermuth at ADP. So if building a portfolio, this format allows us to take advantage of that late-round tier.
CONCLUSION
If looking for the quick and dirty construction, our simulations suggest the following: 3 QB – 6 RB – 8 WR – 3 TE – 3 D/ST – 3 K. That leaves us with two spots that can go anywhere. However, as I’ve tried to emphasize throughout this article, understanding your draft capital allocation is a key to allocating positions properly.
