When it comes to fantasy running backs, there are three things we are chasing -- receptions, rushing volume, and goal-line work. The first two determine a running back’s fantasy floor, and the latter determines upside. What makes things tricky is the fact that touchdowns can be volatile, and that can create the allusion that more or fewer touchdowns are coming based on recent performance. That’s why it’s better to look at expected touchdowns compared to rushing touchdowns.
There are a few ways to spot outliers in the touchdown department. I’ve seen analysts compare touchdowns to carries. I’ve seen some compare touchdowns to rushing yards. But I took it up a notch and created a model to determine expected touchdowns. Why this is necessary is because how far away a running back is from the end zone largely correlates to rushing touchdown percentage (see chart above). This model knows that a goal-line carry is far more valuable than a carry from the 35-yard line, and looking at raw yards or carries doesn’t know the difference. Let's check out the results:
2019 Expected Rushing Touchdowns
A positive "TD+/-" means a player score more touchdowns than expected based on the yard lines of his carries last season, and a negative number means he scored fewer than expected.
Rank | Rusher | Rushing TDs | Expected TDs | TDs +/- |
1 | 12 | 12.3 | -0.3 | |
2 | 9 | 11.3 | -2.3 | |
3 | 15 | 11.3 | 3.7 | |
4 | 12 | 10.9 | 1.1 | |
5 | 13 | 10.6 | 2.4 | |
6 | 16 | 9.8 | 6.2 | |
7 | 10 | 9.5 | 0.5 | |
8 | 7 | 9.3 | -2.3 | |
9 | 5 | 9.3 | -4.3 | |
10 | 3 | 9.0 | -6.0 | |
11 | 8 | 8.5 | -0.5 | |
12 | 7 | 8.5 | -1.5 | |
13 | 6 | 8.4 | -2.4 | |
14 | 16 | 8.3 | 7.7 | |
15 | 8 | 8.2 | -0.2 | |
16 | 8 | 7.3 | 0.7 | |
17 | 6 | 7.2 | -1.2 | |
18 | 6 | 6.5 | -0.5 | |
19 | 2 | 6.1 | -4.1 | |
20 | 7 | 6.0 | 1.0 | |
21 | 9 | 6.0 | 3.0 | |
22 | 7 | 5.9 | 1.1 | |
23 | 5 | 5.7 | -0.7 | |
24 | 6 | 5.7 | 0.3 | |
25 | 3 | 5.7 | -2.7 | |
26 | 6 | 5.5 | 0.5 | |
27 | 4 | 5.2 | -1.2 | |
28 | 8 | 5.1 | 2.9 | |
29 | 10 | 4.9 | 5.1 | |
30 | 3 | 4.9 | -1.9 | |
31 | 5 | 4.9 | 0.1 | |
32 | 6 | 4.9 | 1.1 | |
33 | 5 | 4.7 | 0.3 | |
34 | 1 | 4.6 | -3.6 | |
35 | 2 | 4.6 | -2.6 | |
36 | 3 | 4.6 | -1.6 | |
37 | 3 | 4.5 | -1.5 | |
38 | 4 | 4.3 | -0.3 | |
39 | 6 | 4.3 | 1.7 | |
40 | 2 | 4.2 | -2.2 | |
41 | 2 | 3.9 | -1.9 | |
42 | 3 | 3.9 | -0.9 | |
43 | 2 | 3.7 | -1.7 | |
44 | 5 | 3.7 | 1.3 | |
45 | 8 | 3.6 | 4.4 | |
46 | 7 | 3.4 | 3.6 | |
47 | 3 | 3.3 | -0.3 | |
48 | 4 | 3.3 | 0.7 | |
49 | 2 | 3.2 | -1.2 | |
50 | 4 | 3.1 | 0.9 | |
51 | 4 | 3.1 | 0.9 | |
52 | 4 | 3.1 | 0.9 | |
53 | 3 | 2.9 | 0.1 | |
54 | 5 | 2.7 | 2.3 | |
55 | 4 | 2.7 | 1.3 | |
56 | 1 | 2.7 | -1.7 | |
57 | 3 | 2.7 | 0.3 | |
58 | 5 | 2.6 | 2.4 | |
59 | 2 | 2.6 | -0.6 | |
60 | 3 | 2.6 | 0.4 | |
61 | Duke Johnson | 2 | 2.5 | -0.5 |
62 | David Johnson | 2 | 2.5 | -0.5 |
63 | 1 | 2.3 | -1.3 | |
64 | 2 | 2.3 | -0.3 | |
65 | 1 | 2.2 | -1.2 | |
66 | 3 | 2.2 | 0.8 | |
67 | 2 | 2.2 | -0.2 | |
68 | 2 | 2.1 | -0.1 | |
69 | 2 | 2.1 | -0.1 | |
70 | 3 | 2.0 | 1.0 | |
71 | 1 | 2.0 | -1.0 | |
72 | 1 | 1.9 | -0.9 | |
73 | 0 | 1.9 | -1.9 | |
74 | 3 | 1.9 | 1.1 | |
75 | 0 | 1.8 | -1.8 | |
76 | 4 | 1.8 | 2.2 | |
77 | 1 | 1.8 | -0.8 | |
78 | 1 | 1.8 | -0.8 | |
79 | 2 | 1.8 | 0.2 | |
80 | 1 | 1.7 | -0.7 | |
81 | 0 | 1.7 | -1.7 | |
82 | 2 | 1.6 | 0.4 | |
83 | 2 | 1.5 | 0.5 | |
84 | 1 | 1.5 | -0.5 | |
85 | 3 | 1.5 | 1.5 | |
86 | 1 | 1.4 | -0.4 | |
87 | 0 | 1.4 | -1.4 | |
88 | 0 | 1.4 | -1.4 | |
89 | 2 | 1.4 | 0.6 | |
90 | 3 | 1.3 | 1.7 | |
91 | 1 | 1.3 | -0.3 | |
92 | 1 | 1.2 | -0.2 | |
93 | 2 | 1.2 | 0.8 | |
94 | 2 | 1.2 | 0.8 | |
95 | 0 | 1.2 | -1.2 | |
96 | 0 | 1.2 | -1.2 | |
97 | 2 | 1.2 | 0.8 | |
98 | 2 | 1.2 | 0.8 | |
99 | 1 | 1.2 | -0.2 | |
100 | 4 | 1.1 | 2.9 | |
101 | 2 | 1.1 | 0.9 | |
102 | 2 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
103 | 2 | 1.0 | 1.0 | |
104 | 4 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
2019 Touchdowns Over Expected Leaders
These players scored more touchdowns than expected, which means they are either 1) Barry Sanders or 2) negative regression candidates for 2020 if their workload isn’t expected to change.
Rank | Rusher | Rushing TDs | Expected TDs | TDs +/- |
1 | 16 | 8.3 | +7.7 | |
2 | 16 | 9.8 | +6.2 | |
3 | 10 | 4.9 | +5.1 | |
4 | 8 | 3.6 | +4.4 | |
5 | 15 | 11.3 | +3.7 | |
6 | 7 | 3.4 | +3.6 | |
7 | 9 | 6.0 | +3.0 | |
8 | 4 | 1.0 | +3.0 | |
9 | 8 | 5.1 | +2.9 | |
10 | 4 | 1.1 | +2.9 | |
11 | 13 | 10.6 | +2.4 | |
12 | 5 | 2.6 | +2.4 | |
13 | 5 | 2.7 | +2.3 | |
14 | 4 | 1.8 | +2.2 | |
15 | 6 | 4.3 | +1.7 |
2019 Touchdowns Under Expected Leaders
These players scored fewer touchdowns than expected, which means they are either 1) very dusty or 2) positive regression candidates for 2020 if their workload isn’t expected to change.
Rank | Rusher | Rushing TDs | Expected TDs | TDs +/- |
1 | 3 | 9.0 | -6.0 | |
2 | 5 | 9.3 | -4.3 | |
3 | 2 | 6.1 | -4.1 | |
4 | 1 | 4.6 | -3.6 | |
5 | 3 | 5.7 | -2.7 | |
6 | 2 | 4.6 | -2.6 | |
7 | 6 | 8.4 | -2.4 | |
8 | 9 | 11.3 | -2.3 | |
9 | 7 | 9.3 | -2.3 | |
10 | 2 | 4.2 | -2.2 | |
11 | 3 | 4.9 | -1.9 | |
12 | 2 | 3.9 | -1.9 | |
13 | 0 | 1.9 | -1.9 | |
14 | 0 | 1.8 | -1.8 | |
15 | 2 | 3.7 | -1.7 | |
16 | 1 | 2.7 | -1.7 | |
17 | 0 | 1.7 | -1.7 | |
18 | 3 | 4.6 | -1.6 | |
19 | 7 | 8.5 | -1.5 | |
20 | 3 | 4.5 | -1.5 |
Fantasy Football Content
1. Free Agency Winners and Losers
2. 2019 Rushing Efficiency Rankings
3. 2019 Receiving Efficiency Rankings
4. 2019 Expected Fantasy Points (WR)
5. 2019 Expected Fantasy Points (TE)
6. 2019 Deep Target Efficiency Rankings