Cost Per Point and Why It Matters

I want to show you why I have a points-needed (pts) header on each player in the First Glance articles. It’s based on Cost Per Point and is better known as CPP. It’s the barometer of “what we need from this player to pay for that salary” in Daily Fantasy Sports.
It’s not brain surgery, but it gives you a happy medium to evaluate players.

The goal is 250 points from the $50,000 salary cap spent on DraftKings. That equates to generating 1 point for every $ 200 spent.

I decided to write this short article because of the performance of Derrick Henry last week. Henry delivered 50.70 points on an $8600 salary. You must pay a lower salary to compensate the highly-budgeted Henry when you buy that high. With an $8600 stipend, the floor required to afford the expense is 34.40 points. Henry eclipsed that and smashed it with $169.63 spent per point.

While it worked, it is a very hefty floor to hit for most players on any given Sunday. It happens every week, and we get upset with ourselves for not paying up for the comfort of the floor that Henry delivers. It isn’t his floor that is the challenge. It is the counterpart of the lower salary to park next to him.

Fortunately, at least for last week’s winner, a low-salaried player like Rondale Moore was that piece. Moore, priced at $4000, delivered 27.40 points. Amazingly, it was a higher cost per point than Henry ($169.63), at $182.48. The floor required for Moore was 16 points going into Sunday.

There isn’t any correct answer for going high and low vs. playing in the middle tiers. It all depends upon your risk tolerance. I am never overly attached to any rule of going high, medium, or low as long as the opportunity exists.

To simplify, if I’m paying up for players, I have some extreme comfort in a very low-priced player. If the lower-priced players don’t have enough snap percentage, targets, carries, etc., there is very little chance I am paying up.

I’m the player that primarily plays the data and benefits with the week Cooper Kupp provided. He delivered 39.80 points at a $6000 price tag. That translated to a CPP of $170.85. The floor needed with his salary was 24 points, which is more likely than pursuing Rondale Moore, who only snapped 29% in the previous week.

Even with his booming performance this week, he still only snapped 45.9%. He’s a phenomenal player who I was high on to start this season, which you can see from my two tweets below:

With that, he’s not the player I pursue in my GPPs. I need more snap % and more targets. Without the guarantee of opportunity, I am doubtful to take that shot. I throw a few darts each week. When I state, “a few darts,” it is that. One or two lineups have those “reach for it” picks.

There is nothing wrong with your tolerance being more aggressive than mine. The goal is to win, and who cares how you achieve it? For me, that’s how I’ve won previously and delivered a few other top-10 finishes. That’s my path, and it does not have to be yours.

I aim to show you why I’m providing the information I provide. CPP is an added element to the many aspects I utilize. I’ve done this heavily for over seven years. There are plenty of pieces here for you, and they should help to improve your play. That’s the goal, period. Adapt what I do, disregard what I do, copy what I do, or combine all 3. It doesn’t matter. Do it like Al Davis says, “Just Win, Baby!”