Needles from the Haystack (1 Viewer)

Thank you for your comments on this weekly article during the season. Here's a breakdown of how important reception % can be to both a team and a player's success. This article is available to non-subscribers

Reception percentage (recs/targets) goes a long way in determining value

No player with more than six receiving TDs had a reception % of less than 50%
Only two players (Jerry Porter & Arnaz Battle) in the top 50 in receiving TDs had a reception % of less than 50%
A record 11 players had 10 receiving TDs or more (only five in 2006) - only four of them had a rec% of less than 60%
The highest reception % for a player with at least 8 receiving TDs was Wes Welker 77.2%
14 players had 90 receptions or more - only one of them had a reception % of less than 60% - Chad Johnson 58.1%WRs with a reception percentage of 65.0% or more - with less than 50 receptions (minimum 30 recs) - possible emerging WRs in 2008?

72.5% Anthony Gonzalez 37 recs
72.0% Jabar Gaffney 36 recs
68.1% DJ Hackett 32 recsWRs with a reception percentage of 60.0 - 64.9% or more - with less than 50 receptions (minimum 30 recs)

64.0% Lance Moore 32 recs
63/3% Reggie Williams 38 recs
61.5% Eric Moulds 32 recs
61.3% Donte Stallworth 46 recs
60.8% Ernest Wilford 45 recs
60.3% Roscoe Parrish 35 recs
60.3 Dennis Northcutt 44 recsThe below information explains how reception percentage plays an important role to a team's success - Breakdown by team (WR only, minimum 20 recs)

Arizona

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

2 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (Fitzgerald, Boldin)

1 Players with more than 70.0 rec % (Boldin)

Atlanta

1 Player with less than 50.0 rec % (L. Robinson)

2 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (R. White, M. Jenkins)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

Baltimore

1 Players with less than 50.0 rec % (D. Williams)

1 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (D. Mason)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Devard Darling had a 46.1 rec % with 18 recs

Buffalo

1 Player with less than 50.0 rec % (L. Evans)

1 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (R. Parrish)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Outside of San Francisco, Lee Evans was the only player with less than 50.0 rec % that led his team in recs for WRs

Carolina

1 Players with less than 50.0 rec % (Colbert)

0 Players with more than 60.0 rec %

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Drew Carter had a 50.7 rec % and nearly went below 50.0%

Chicago

1 Players with less than 50.0 rec % (Muhammad)

0 Players with more than 60.0 rec %

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

Cincinnati

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

1 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (Houshmandzadeh)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Glenn Holt and Antonio Chatman had less than 20 recs, but had 65.0 rec % or higher

Cleveland

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

1 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (Jurevicius)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

Dallas

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

1 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (Crayton)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Dallas had only two WRs with more than 20 recs (Owens 81, Crayton 50)

Denver

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

1 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (B. Marshall)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

Detroit

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

3 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (Furrey, McDonald, R. Williams)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

Green Bay

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

3 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (Driver, Jennings, K. Robinson)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

Houston

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

2 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (A. Johnson, K. Walter)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Andre Johnson had a 69.8 rec % and Jacoby Jones and David Anderson had more than 10, but less than 20 recs with 62.5% and 70.6%

Indianapolis

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

3 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (Gonzalez, Wayne, Harrison)

1 Player with more than 70.0 rec % (Gonzalez)

* Note - Marvin Harrison had exactly 20 recs

Jacksonville

1 Player with less than 50.0 rec % (M. Jones)

3 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (R. Williams, Wilford, Northcutt)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

Kansas City

1 Players with less than 50.0 rec % (J. Webb)

1 Player with more than 60.0 rec % (S. Parker)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Dwayne Bowe just missed 60% reception percentage with a 59.8%

Miami

3 Players with less than 50.0 rec % (Ginn, Booker, Chambers)

0 Players with more than 60.0 rec %

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Chris Chambers rec % was 55.6% with San Diego, compared to 46.3% average in his three years prior to 2007

Minnesota

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

1 Player with more than 60.0 rec % (B. Wade)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

New England

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

4 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (Welker, Gaffney, Moss, Stallworth)

2 Players with more than 70.0 rec % (Welker, Gaffney)

* Note - Only Moss, Welker, Stallworth and Gaffney caught balls at the WR position for New England this year. All four had a rec % of 60.0 or more

New Orleans

1 Player with less than 50.0 rec % (D. Henderson)

3 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (Colston, L. Moore, Patten)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

NY Giants

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

0 Players with more than 60.0 rec %

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Plaxico Burress was exactly at 50.0%. He has a 48.5 rec % average in his last two years prior

NY Jets

1 Player with less than 50.0 rec % (B. Smith)

2 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (Cotchery, Coles)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Justin McCareins had only 19 recs with a 41.3 rec %

Oakland

1 Player with less than 50.0 rec % (J. Porter)

0 Players with more than 60.0 rec %

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Oakland had only two WRs with more than 7 recs (Porter and Curry)

Philadelphia

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

1 Player with more than 60.0 rec % (J. Avant)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Jason Avant just missed 70.0 rec % with 69.7%. Hank Basket had only 16 recs, but he had a 72.7 rec %

Pittsburgh

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

2 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (Ward, Holmes)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Cedrick Wilson had 18 recs with a 60.0 rec %

San Diego

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

0 Players with more than 60.0 rec %

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Craig Davis was the closest to 60.0% at 58.8%. He had 20 recs

Seattle

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

2 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (Engram, Hackett)

1 Player with more than 70.0 rec % (Engram)

* Note - Ben Obomanu had only 12 recs and his rec % was a very low 41.4%

San Francisco

2 Players with less than 50.0 rec % (Battle, D. Jackson)

0 Players with more than 60.0 rec %

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - SF had only 4 WRs with 7 recs or more. The combined rec % of those four is 41.5%

St. Louis

1 Player with less than 50.0 rec % (D. Bennett)

1 Player with more than 60.0 rec % (Holt)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Outside of Torry Holt, five WRs had more than five receptions for the Rams, averaging 47.6 rec % combined

Tampa Bay

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

1 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (Hilliard)

1 Players with more than 70.0 rec % (Hilliard)

* Note - Maurice Stovall had only 10 recs, but he had a 76.9 rec %

Tennessee

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

3 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (Gage, B. Jones, Moulds)

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Roydell Williams just missed 60.0 rec % with a 58.5%

Washington

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

2 Players with more than 60.0 rec % (McCardell, Randle El)

1 Players with more than 70.0 rec % (McCardell)

* Note - Reche Caldwell had a 69.2 rec % with just 15 recs

16 players with less than 50.0 rec % came from 13 different teams

(STL, SF, OAK, NYJ, NO, MIA, KC, JAC, CHI, CAR, BUF, BAL, ATL) Playoff teams in bold

Average wins from those 13 teams = 5.3

14 teams had two or more WRs with a 60.0 rec % or more

(ARI, ATL, DET, GB, HOU, IND, JAC, NE, NO, NYJ, PIT, SEA, TEN, WAS) Playoff teams in bold

Average wins from those 14 teams = 9.2

Seven teams had three or more WRs with a 60.0 rec % or more

(TEN, NO, NE, JAC, IND, GB, DET) Playoff teams in bold

Average wins from those 7 teams = 11.0

Six teams had at least one WR with a 70.0 rec % or more

(ARI, IND, NE, SEA, TB, WAS) Playoff teams in bold

Average wins from those 6 teams = 10.8

Jeff Haseley said:

NY Giants

0 Players with less than 50.0 rec %

0 Players with more than 60.0 rec %

0 Players with more than 70.0 rec %

* Note - Plaxico Burress was exactly at 50.0%. He has a 48.5 rec % average in his last two years prior

Click to expand...

Great stuff as usual Jeff.Conspicuously absent from those playoff teams in bold - the NY Giants, who led all teams with 42 drops (and that number sounds low to me - I swear I saw Jacobs drop that many alone).

That could mean that Eli is a decent sleeper candidate for 2008.

Seven teams had three or more WRs with a 60.0 rec % or more

(TEN, NO, NE, JAC, IND, GB, DET) Playoff teams in bold

Average wins from those 7 teams = 11.0

Click to expand...

Also interesting is the fact that NO and DET are the only non-playoff teams with three WRs with a 60.0 rec %. Perhaps the Lions under new offensive guidance and the Saints (7-3 since starting 0-4) are teams to watch in 2008?

Another interesting find...

Of the 12 playoff teams, here's their record against playoff teams in the regular season

NE 6-0

DAL 4-2

GB 3-1

IND 4-3

JAC 4-3

SEA 1-1

SD 2-3

TB 2-3

TEN 2-4

WAS 2-5

PIT 1-2

NYG 1-5

Teams eliminated in red. Things don't look good for the Chargers and especially the Giants

Jeff Haseley said:

Another interesting find...

Of the 12 playoff teams, here's their record against playoff teams in the regular season

NE 6-0

DAL 4-2

GB 3-1

IND 4-3

JAC 4-3

SEA 1-1

SD 2-3

TB 2-3

TEN 2-4

WAS 2-5

PIT 1-2

NYG 1-5

Teams eliminated in red. Things don't look good for the Chargers and especially the Giants

Click to expand...

You sir, are the fo-shizzle. Keep up the good work.

Jeff, it's great to see this back in the SP, even if only for a limited time! I actually suggested this in the "pinned" Improvements thread.

Great read as always.

Jeff Pasquino said:

Conspicuously absent from those playoff teams in bold - the NY Giants, who led all teams with 42 drops (and that number sounds low to me - I swear I saw Jacobs drop that many alone).

Click to expand...

In all fairness to the Giants, Jacobs ineptitude was so great that he brought down the entire team in the cumulative rankings.

Great work as usual.

But...for all practical purposes, the Titans had FOUR receivers at 60% or better yet had a dismal # of touchdown catches.

These seem to be at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

1. What do you speculate that this means for Tennessee?

2. How does the fact that Tennessee had 4 at 58% or above reflect on VY?

H.K. said:

Jeff Pasquino said:

Conspicuously absent from those playoff teams in bold - the NY Giants, who led all teams with 42 drops (and that number sounds low to me - I swear I saw Jacobs drop that many alone).

Click to expand...

In all fairness to the Giants, Jacobs ineptitude was so great that he brought down the entire team in the cumulative rankings.

Click to expand...

Seriously dude, can you give it a rest already or must you pollute every thread that mentions his name with your nonsense?

Weapon of Mass Instruction said:

Great work as usual.But...for all practical purposes, the Titans had FOUR receivers at 60% or better yet had a dismal # of touchdown catches.These seem to be at the opposite ends of the spectrum.1. What do you speculate that this means for Tennessee?2. How does the fact that Tennessee had 4 at 58% or above reflect on VY?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, as was pointed out by Fear & Loathing in another thread, that % that was dropped happen to be in the endzone all too often. Probably just an anomaly and also gives reason to hope for VY in the future. Similar in thinking to Willie Parker only getting 2 rushing TDs and over 1200 rushing yds. Very unlikely to happen, but it does and it's what rounds out the ends of Bell curves.

Does anyone have the reception %age for Chambers that only includes his time in SD?

gianmarco said:

Weapon of Mass Instruction said:

Great work as usual.But...for all practical purposes, the Titans had FOUR receivers at 60% or better yet had a dismal # of touchdown catches.These seem to be at the opposite ends of the spectrum.1. What do you speculate that this means for Tennessee?2. How does the fact that Tennessee had 4 at 58% or above reflect on VY?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, as was pointed out by Fear & Loathing in another thread, that % that was dropped happen to be in the endzone all too often. Probably just an anomaly and also gives reason to hope for VY in the future. Similar in thinking to Willie Parker only getting 2 rushing TDs and over 1200 rushing yds. Very unlikely to happen, but it does and it's what rounds out the ends of Bell curves.

Click to expand...

How is the % figured? Who decides if it is a catchable pass, if it was truly dropped, etc.?

Weapon of Mass Instruction said:

gianmarco said:

Weapon of Mass Instruction said:

Great work as usual.

But...for all practical purposes, the Titans had FOUR receivers at 60% or better yet had a dismal # of touchdown catches.

These seem to be at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

1. What do you speculate that this means for Tennessee?

2. How does the fact that Tennessee had 4 at 58% or above reflect on VY?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, as was pointed out by Fear & Loathing in another thread, that % that was dropped happen to be in the endzone all too often. Probably just an anomaly and also gives reason to hope for VY in the future. Similar in thinking to Willie Parker only getting 2 rushing TDs and over 1200 rushing yds. Very unlikely to happen, but it does and it's what rounds out the ends of Bell curves.

Click to expand...

How is the % figured? Who decides if it is a catchable pass, if it was truly dropped, etc.?

Click to expand...

Don't know if there's a way to actually figure it, but here is his post from another thread:http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=8008313

He wrote:

"1] There was a month-long window where I covered the Titans every Sunday, and I've never seen a QB lose as many passing TDs as Young did over that month long period. Between holding penalties that called back TDs and receivers either dropping passes or running the wrong route, VY could have had at least 7-9 more passing TDs just in that four game window. I realize you could point to similar situations for many QBs around the league, but I've never seen it snowball on a QB like it did with Young in that string of games. He could have easily notched 10 more TDs this season even with a rag-tag bunch of receiving options. I think VY was much better than his numbers indicate."

Just saying that some of what he mentioned may explain the disparity between their low TD #'s and high catch % for so many WR's (as bad as they are). I'm not really sure how to interpret it, to be honest.

what were the old Wheelhouse articles called again? i can't remember.

Sack-Religious said:

Does anyone have the reception %age for Chambers that only includes his time in SD?

Click to expand...

He's still not up there (and that's being kind).Chambers - 2007:Miami: 31 catches on 66 targets (47.0%), 415 yards (13.4 YPC) and 0 TDs in 6 games.San Diego: 35 catches on 63 targets (55.6%), 555 yards (15.9 YPC) and 4 TDs in 10 games.So is the bump of 8.6% and 2.5YPC significant? Well, Rivers is ahead of the Miami QB situation and so is the SD offense, so I don't see this as a huge improvement. Most of the increased stats go to the Charger offense, not Chambers' abilities. If anything it says that Miami held back Chambers in YPC and scoring, which would be expected on such a bad team. He still can't be expected to catch over 50% consistently with 100+ targets.

Very interesting stuff. But wouldn't you expect WR's who had great (or even good) years to catch a high % of their targets?

What would be more interesting is to see who fit the 65%+ reception percentage with less than 50 catches (min 30) last year and how they did this year.

gianmarco said:

H.K. said:

Jeff Pasquino said:

Conspicuously absent from those playoff teams in bold - the NY Giants, who led all teams with 42 drops (and that number sounds low to me - I swear I saw Jacobs drop that many alone).

Click to expand...

In all fairness to the Giants, Jacobs ineptitude was so great that he brought down the entire team in the cumulative rankings.

Click to expand...

Seriously dude, can you give it a rest already or must you pollute every thread that mentions his name with your nonsense?

Click to expand...

Yes, yes he must. Since he lost the sig bet and was proven wrong, again, he will obviously redouble his efforts to slander Jacobs every chance he gets. All I can say is, get used to it. Or, the IGNORE feature works well.

Jeff Haseley said:

Only two players (Jerry Porter & Arnaz Battle) in the top 50 in receiving TDs had a reception % of less than 50%

Click to expand...

Worth noting when evaluating Battle is that he was a victim of the mess around him. For his career prior to 2007 his reception % was 65.6%, and for 2006 it was 67.8%. Due to bringing in the clueless Hostler as OC, plus QB Smith playing three games badly injured because tough guy coach Nolan told him to suck it up and play, this offense was historically bad. Battle's 48.1% this year was still significantly better than the 49er group % of 41.5% cited above. Battle's % in the games Smith played injured -- weeks 8, 9, 10 -- was 11/30 or 36.7%, because Smith couldn't complete anything more than dump offs. You can be the target of a pass, but if it bounces to you or sails 5 feet over your head, you're not going to catch it. Excluding those three games, Battle was at 52.7%, still not up to his usual but decent given the pathetic quarterbacking ovrall.

Modog814 said:

Very interesting stuff. But wouldn't you expect WR's who had great (or even good) years to catch a high % of their targets? What would be more interesting is to see who fit the 65%+ reception percentage with less than 50 catches (min 30) last year and how they did this year.

Click to expand...

There are always a few WRs that have good numbers but took a TON of targets to get there.Joey Galloway was one last year, Chambers another. Chambers was HORRIBLE in 2006 with under 40%.If a WR is at ~55% or lower, his YPC better be high (i.e. a deep threat where catches are harder to come by).

Reception percentage (recs/targets) goes a long way in determining valueNo player with more than six receiving TDs had a reception % of less than 50%Only two players (Jerry Porter & Arnaz Battle) in the top 50 in receiving TDs had a reception % of less than 50%A record 11 players had 10 receiving TDs or more (only five in 2006) - only four of them had a rec% of less than 60%The highest reception % for a player with at least 8 receiving TDs was Wes Welker 77.2%14 players had 90 receptions or more - only one of them had a reception % of less than 60% - Chad Johnson 58.1%WRs with a reception percentage of 65.0% or more - with less than 50 receptions (minimum 30 recs) - possible emerging WRs in 2008?72.5% Anthony Gonzalez 37 recs72.0% Jabar Gaffney 36 recs68.1% DJ Hackett 32 recsWRs with a reception percentage of 60.0 - 64.9% or more - with less than 50 receptions (minimum 30 recs)64.0% Lance Moore 32 recs63/3% Reggie Williams 38 recs61.5% Eric Moulds 32 recs61.3% Donte Stallworth 46 recs60.8% Ernest Wilford 45 recs60.3% Roscoe Parrish 35 recs60.3 Dennis Northcutt 44 recs

Click to expand...

I'm by no means a statistician, but I'm not sure this data is convincing or particularly meaningful, as presented. I mean, how many players in the top 50 in receiving TDs had a reception % of less than 52%? 53%?If one wants to properly show how reception % (X) relates to WR value (Y), it seems one would be better suited to regress Y on X, along with other variables such as indoor/outdoor games, a dummy variable for starting 1/2 WR, QB completion % or QB rating (as a proxy for quarterback ability), QB sacks (as a possible proxy for line strength), and a host of other factors. Further, one would probably want to use data over a number of years to better capture whether in fact this is a trend and not incidental. Of course, using panel data (or even simple cross-sectional data) in this way one would need to compensate for many possible econometric issues that arise.Moreover, if reception % is a possible indicator of WR value, then why are there many such players not worth much at all? Is a high reception % a necessary but not a sufficient condition for player value? How much does reception % change year to year for a WR? If it changes a lot, then why should I look at year x's reception % for a giving player if it'll be significantly different in year x+1? Short of any rigorous statistical analysis, my belief is that the connection between reception % and current/future WR value will be tenuous at best.Maybe the OP is just an FYI and people are to make of it as they wish. I'll admit the above information is interesting at a certain level.But at the end of the day, in all likelihood the statistics will say that being a starting receiver on a team with a good QB/line means you'll have a high valued WR. That is, statistically these variables explain the variation in player value the most. But tell me something I don't know.

gianmarco said:

H.K. said:

Jeff Pasquino said:

Conspicuously absent from those playoff teams in bold - the NY Giants, who led all teams with 42 drops (and that number sounds low to me - I swear I saw Jacobs drop that many alone).

Click to expand...

In all fairness to the Giants, Jacobs ineptitude was so great that he brought down the entire team in the cumulative rankings.

Click to expand...

Seriously dude, can you give it a rest already or must you pollute every thread that mentions his name with your nonsense?

Click to expand...

Care to explain these numbers as nonsense?

NFL Leaderboard for Drops

1t Dallas Clark Ind 12

1t Braylon Edwards Cle 12

3t Reggie Bush NO 10

3t Devery Henderson NO 10

3t Santana Moss Was 10

3t Terrell Owens Dal 10

7t Randy Moss NE 9

7t Brian Westbrook Phi 9

9t Brandon Jacobs NYG 8

Among RB's

Bush 98 targets 73 recepts 10 drops - 74.5%

Westbrook 120 targets 90 recepts 9 drops - 75%

Jacobs 38 targets 23 recepts 8 drops - 60.5%

Good lord he is awful. Keep on defending him, though....

Just in general I've found the drop stat to be almost a joke. There are many more drops than players are given 'credit' for. I've seen games where a player will drop 3 passes and then when I look at the stat for that game later on it shows 1 drop. Whoever does these game stats are for whatever reason very generous to the receiver. It seems that in order for it to be considered a drop, a player has to be standing there uncovered and have the ball hit him in the hands at chest level. Anything tougher than that and they won't count it.

Couch Potato said:

Just in general I've found the drop stat to be almost a joke. There are many more drops than players are given 'credit' for. I've seen games where a player will drop 3 passes and then when I look at the stat for that game later on it shows 1 drop. Whoever does these game stats are for whatever reason very generous to the receiver. It seems that in order for it to be considered a drop, a player has to be standing there uncovered and have the ball hit him in the hands at chest level. Anything tougher than that and they won't count it.

Click to expand...

Even then, if your name is Williamson you usually only get 'credit' for one or two of those. I remember last year he had one game where one bounced off his face, one off his chest, and two others off his hands. Look at the stats and he has one drop.

I still don't know what reception percentage is.

I thought it was funny that you cited a stat of 'those over 50 receptions (30 minimum)'

I've seen measures having a minimum nominal (QB rating, punting average) but never a nominal with a nominal minimum.

---

duh - it's right at the top - receptions divided by targets

Great job, Wheel/Jeff. This is a great way to start the offseason...

Mark Kamenski said:

Reception percentage (recs/targets) goes a long way in determining valueNo player with more than six receiving TDs had a reception % of less than 50%Only two players (Jerry Porter & Arnaz Battle) in the top 50 in receiving TDs had a reception % of less than 50%A record 11 players had 10 receiving TDs or more (only five in 2006) - only four of them had a rec% of less than 60%The highest reception % for a player with at least 8 receiving TDs was Wes Welker 77.2%14 players had 90 receptions or more - only one of them had a reception % of less than 60% - Chad Johnson 58.1%WRs with a reception percentage of 65.0% or more - with less than 50 receptions (minimum 30 recs) - possible emerging WRs in 2008?72.5% Anthony Gonzalez 37 recs72.0% Jabar Gaffney 36 recs68.1% DJ Hackett 32 recsWRs with a reception percentage of 60.0 - 64.9% or more - with less than 50 receptions (minimum 30 recs)64.0% Lance Moore 32 recs63/3% Reggie Williams 38 recs61.5% Eric Moulds 32 recs61.3% Donte Stallworth 46 recs60.8% Ernest Wilford 45 recs60.3% Roscoe Parrish 35 recs60.3 Dennis Northcutt 44 recs

Click to expand...

I'm by no means a statistician, but I'm not sure this data is convincing or particularly meaningful, as presented. I mean, how many players in the top 50 in receiving TDs had a reception % of less than 52%? 53%?If one wants to properly show how reception % (X) relates to WR value (Y), it seems one would be better suited to regress Y on X, along with other variables such as indoor/outdoor games, a dummy variable for starting 1/2 WR, QB completion % or QB rating (as a proxy for quarterback ability), QB sacks (as a possible proxy for line strength), and a host of other factors. Further, one would probably want to use data over a number of years to better capture whether in fact this is a trend and not incidental. Of course, using panel data (or even simple cross-sectional data) in this way one would need to compensate for many possible econometric issues that arise.Moreover, if reception % is a possible indicator of WR value, then why are there many such players not worth much at all? Is a high reception % a necessary but not a sufficient condition for player value? How much does reception % change year to year for a WR? If it changes a lot, then why should I look at year x's reception % for a giving player if it'll be significantly different in year x+1? Short of any rigorous statistical analysis, my belief is that the connection between reception % and current/future WR value will be tenuous at best.Maybe the OP is just an FYI and people are to make of it as they wish. I'll admit the above information is interesting at a certain level.But at the end of the day, in all likelihood the statistics will say that being a starting receiver on a team with a good QB/line means you'll have a high valued WR. That is, statistically these variables explain the variation in player value the most. But tell me something I don't know.

Click to expand...

These are all interesting data. But, they don't tell us much, let alone even elude to anything beyond the obvious.

I have been looking at catch % for a long time in terms of evaluating the upside of WRs, but like all statistics it needs to be taken with a grain of salt because there are other variables that can distort its meaning. For example, just because Gaffney and Gonzalez and Welker have high catch percentages doesn't mean they are going to be great WRs for their whole career--you have to take into consideration who is throwing the ball to them and the type of offense in which they play. Secondly, I like to take into consideration YPC because if a guys has a 50% catch percentage but his YPC is 15 plus that is very different than a guy with a 50% catch percentage and a YPC of 12. The one guy is catching longer passes, which are typically more difficult to complete. It stands to reason that a possession WR will have a higher catch percentage than a deep threat guy like Evans, for example. You also need to look at a WRs catch percentage over a longer period of time than one year if you are evaluating for dynasty purposes, so if you did you would see that Evans, to take one example, has historically had a much higher catch percentage than this year. It isn't hard to conclude that the crappy QB play and the QB carousel had something to do with his catch percentage, combined with the fact that he had no WR2 to keep the coverage from always being doubled his direction.

az_prof said:

I have been looking at catch % for a long time in terms of evaluating the upside of WRs, but like all statistics it needs to be taken with a grain of salt because there are other variables that can distort its meaning. For example, just because Gaffney and Gonzalez and Welker have high catch percentages doesn't mean they are going to be great WRs for their whole career--you have to take into consideration who is throwing the ball to them and the type of offense in which they play. Secondly, I like to take into consideration YPC because if a guys has a 50% catch percentage but his YPC is 15 plus that is very different than a guy with a 50% catch percentage and a YPC of 12. The one guy is catching longer passes, which are typically more difficult to complete. It stands to reason that a possession WR will have a higher catch percentage than a deep threat guy like Evans, for example. You also need to look at a WRs catch percentage over a longer period of time than one year if you are evaluating for dynasty purposes, so if you did you would see that Evans, to take one example, has historically had a much higher catch percentage than this year. It isn't hard to conclude that the crappy QB play and the QB carousel had something to do with his catch percentage, combined with the fact that he had no WR2 to keep the coverage from always being doubled his direction.

Click to expand...

Be that as it may, I was just pointing out the correlation as it relates to this year's players and teams. There's no denying the stats as it compares to team wins this year. I found it interesting and thought others would too. We can look deeper into this by looking at years past, but I would be surprised if there is any big variation from 2007.

Jeff Haseley said:

az_prof said:

I have been looking at catch % for a long time in terms of evaluating the upside of WRs, but like all statistics it needs to be taken with a grain of salt because there are other variables that can distort its meaning. For example, just because Gaffney and Gonzalez and Welker have high catch percentages doesn't mean they are going to be great WRs for their whole career--you have to take into consideration who is throwing the ball to them and the type of offense in which they play. Secondly, I like to take into consideration YPC because if a guys has a 50% catch percentage but his YPC is 15 plus that is very different than a guy with a 50% catch percentage and a YPC of 12. The one guy is catching longer passes, which are typically more difficult to complete. It stands to reason that a possession WR will have a higher catch percentage than a deep threat guy like Evans, for example. You also need to look at a WRs catch percentage over a longer period of time than one year if you are evaluating for dynasty purposes, so if you did you would see that Evans, to take one example, has historically had a much higher catch percentage than this year. It isn't hard to conclude that the crappy QB play and the QB carousel had something to do with his catch percentage, combined with the fact that he had no WR2 to keep the coverage from always being doubled his direction.

Click to expand...

Be that as it may, I was just pointing out the correlation as it relates to this year's players and teams. There's no denying the stats as it compares to team wins this year. I found it interesting and thought others would too. We can look deeper into this by looking at years past, but I would be surprised if there is any big variation from 2007.

Click to expand...

IIRC really high catch % on a high # of tagets is unushual. Meaning that if the player had over 100 targets the catch % would even out some to be in the 60-70% range. To have a WR higher than that (Welker) is unushual I think but just goes along with the great year Brady has had. Maybe Harrisons was this high when Manning threw 49 TD I don't remember.As far as the number of players who have caught over 90 this year.. 14 of them IIRC.. that is a record. So that of course is connected to the catch % also.For me when I have looked at this (and I do think its important) I just don't trust WRs with catch % lower than 60. Those WR are unreliable. If you look at any passing stat since no chuck rule (2003??) re-enforcement, they keep going up across the board.

Jeff Haseley said:

az_prof said:

I have been looking at catch % for a long time in terms of evaluating the upside of WRs, but like all statistics it needs to be taken with a grain of salt because there are other variables that can distort its meaning. For example, just because Gaffney and Gonzalez and Welker have high catch percentages doesn't mean they are going to be great WRs for their whole career--you have to take into consideration who is throwing the ball to them and the type of offense in which they play. Secondly, I like to take into consideration YPC because if a guys has a 50% catch percentage but his YPC is 15 plus that is very different than a guy with a 50% catch percentage and a YPC of 12. The one guy is catching longer passes, which are typically more difficult to complete. It stands to reason that a possession WR will have a higher catch percentage than a deep threat guy like Evans, for example. You also need to look at a WRs catch percentage over a longer period of time than one year if you are evaluating for dynasty purposes, so if you did you would see that Evans, to take one example, has historically had a much higher catch percentage than this year. It isn't hard to conclude that the crappy QB play and the QB carousel had something to do with his catch percentage, combined with the fact that he had no WR2 to keep the coverage from always being doubled his direction.

Click to expand...

Be that as it may, I was just pointing out the correlation as it relates to this year's players and teams. There's no denying the stats as it compares to team wins this year. I found it interesting and thought others would too. We can look deeper into this by looking at years past, but I would be surprised if there is any big variation from 2007.

Click to expand...

Here are just a couple from 2006 which are quite different from 2007:Randy Moss in 2006: 43%TO: 52%Roddy White: 47%Lee Evans: 60%I am not saying that this is not meaningful--only that you need to look at the information in a broader context.

Most of you are getting closer, but the stat you are craving is:

Yards Per Target (YPT)

Taking two example receivers to avoid any player biases, would you rather have (for NFL / football purposes, not fantasy):

WR Alpha - 100 catches on 200 targets for 1,000 yards (Rec % of 50%)

OR

WR Beta - 40 catches on 100 targets for 1,000 yards (Rec % of 40%)

At first glance, each player had 1,000 yards, so there is no difference - but look at the YPT.

Alpha has a YPT of 5.0, while Beta has an amazing YPT of 10.0. That goes against their reception percentages.

So why would Beta be much more valuable, even though his catch percentage is worse?

Look at what DIDN'T happen. 100 times Alpha was thrown the ball, and nothing (positive) happened. It was incomplete or worse. Beta only had 60 such plays, and the 40 plays where he was successful he was 2.5 times as successful as Alpha.

Yards. Per. Target. (YPT).

Jeff Pasquino said:

Most of you are getting closer, but the stat you are craving is:

Yards Per Target (YPT)

Taking two example receivers to avoid any player biases, would you rather have (for NFL / football purposes, not fantasy):

WR Alpha - 100 catches on 200 targets for 1,000 yards (Rec % of 50%)

OR

WR Beta - 40 catches on 100 targets for 1,000 yards (Rec % of 40%)

At first glance, each player had 1,000 yards, so there is no difference - but look at the YPT.

Alpha has a YPT of 5.0, while Beta has an amazing YPT of 25.0. That goes against their reception percentages.

So why would Beta be much more valuable, even though his catch percentage is worse?

Look at what DIDN'T happen. 100 times Alpha was thrown the ball, and nothing (positive) happened. It was incomplete or worse. Beta only had 60 such plays, and the 40 plays where he was successful he was 5 times as successful as Alpha.

Yards. Per. Target. (YPT).

Click to expand...

I think Beta has a Yards.Per.Target of 10 and YPC catch of 25. He would have to put up 1000 receiving yards on 40 targets to have a YPT of 25.

Weapon of Mass Instruction said:

Great work as usual.But...for all practical purposes, the Titans had FOUR receivers at 60% or better yet had a dismal # of touchdown catches.These seem to be at the opposite ends of the spectrum.1. What do you speculate that this means for Tennessee?2. How does the fact that Tennessee had 4 at 58% or above reflect on VY?

Click to expand...

quiet you. We wouldn't want people starting to think that maybe, just maybe, VY is a decent passer after all.

rabidfireweasel said:

Jeff Pasquino said:

Most of you are getting closer, but the stat you are craving is:

Yards Per Target (YPT)

Taking two example receivers to avoid any player biases, would you rather have (for NFL / football purposes, not fantasy):

WR Alpha - 100 catches on 200 targets for 1,000 yards (Rec % of 50%)

OR

WR Beta - 40 catches on 100 targets for 1,000 yards (Rec % of 40%)

At first glance, each player had 1,000 yards, so there is no difference - but look at the YPT.

Alpha has a YPT of 5.0, while Beta has an amazing YPT of 25.0. That goes against their reception percentages.

So why would Beta be much more valuable, even though his catch percentage is worse?

Look at what DIDN'T happen. 100 times Alpha was thrown the ball, and nothing (positive) happened. It was incomplete or worse. Beta only had 60 such plays, and the 40 plays where he was successful he was 5 times as successful as Alpha.

Yards. Per. Target. (YPT).

Click to expand...

I think Beta has a Yards.Per.Target of 10 and YPC catch of 25. He would have to put up 1000 receiving yards on 40 targets to have a YPT of 25.

Click to expand...

Correct. My error.I'll fix original post.

FUBAR said:

Weapon of Mass Instruction said:

Great work as usual.

But...for all practical purposes, the Titans had FOUR receivers at 60% or better yet had a dismal # of touchdown catches.

These seem to be at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

1. What do you speculate that this means for Tennessee?

2. How does the fact that Tennessee had 4 at 58% or above reflect on VY?

Click to expand...

quiet you. We wouldn't want people starting to think that maybe, just maybe, VY is a decent passer after all.

Click to expand...

And I'm not trying to use this stat to prove that VY is a good passer. What I'm trying to do is to figure out how a stat that is typically indicative of being a very good WR would seem to show...that the Titans have very good WR. By just glancing at the data, it would seem to put their WR % in the top quartile of the NFL.What explains the abberation? Is it an abberation?

If the % is determined by receptions divided by targets, then WHAT is considered a target? If the QB targeted a WR but the pass was entirely uncatchable -- or the DB batted it down before the WR had a chance -- are those targets?