M
MelvinTScupper
Guest
should people be posting about his impending death?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Ohhh. Silly newbie.When you catch the ball and get hit, it doesn't hurt. Only LJs carries are worrisome. Unless you CARRY the ball and get hit, then it hurts.Don't worry about SJAX, but yes LJ is pretty much done.
M
MelvinTScupper
Guest
your sarcasm meter might be bustedAce Matherton said:
Ace Matherton
Footballguy
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Seems to me, his isn't the only one.
Scruff Mcgruff
Footballguy
Can you pick my lottery numbers for me? You are ahead of your own time
M
MelvinTScupper
Guest
moi?
M
MelvinTScupper
Guest
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
I thought so. But now I'm not sure what the heck is going on.And SJax will likely get fewer touches this year. Brian Leonard might be like Jackson-lite.
Yeah that was odd, I have never been able to quote someone that posted AFTER me
M
MelvinTScupper
Guest
Almost has to. But Jackson would still be my #2 pick.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
He was by me in the FFA draft. For that matter, he's my #2 in ALL drafts.
SSOG
Moderator
Statistical research suggests a negative correlation between number of carries and production in year N+1. The same research actually suggests a POSITIVE (albeit very, very, very weak- essentially zero) correlation between number of catches and production in year N+1.In other words, while you were trying to be cute, you actually hit the nail on the head- LJ's carries are worrisome, SJax's catches are not.
brednbuddah
Footballguy
joey
Footballguy
looks like someone stopped reading the thread after post #2...
brednbuddah
Footballguy
yup.
Mr. Pink
Footballguy
Sweet link. Everytime someone adds that link to a post, I catch myself watching it, like, 7 times. Reggie Bush got JACKED UP!!!
Overall, there is a huge positive correlation between number of carries in year N and production in year N+1. (E.g., Rudi Johnson should be more productive than Maurice Morris this year.)There is a negative correlation between production in Year N+1 and carries beyond a certain point (350 or whatever) in Year N, but is it statistically significant? I haven't checked for significance, but I believe the sample size for 350+ carries is small enough that I suspect it isn't statistically significant. And if you lower it to 300 carries or whatever to increase sample size, I suspect that the negative correlation will disappear.
I know other people have looked into this way more deeply than I have (e.g., Drinen, FootballOutsiders), but I don't ever remember seeing anyone test for significance. (And since people are probably testing their hypothesis from the very same data that led them to form their hypothesis in the first place, the correlation should be much stronger to be considered significant.)
CowboyFan
Footballguy
Incomplete pass = no touch, therefore it has no effect
I don't buy this "statistical research". When you can count the sample size on your hands, the "results" are utterly useless. If you go back beyond 12 years, you're dealing with a totally different beast. The advances in nutrition, supplements, sports medicine, training. 12 years ago they'd send you back in the game after a concussion if you could count to 5. To even get a group of 50-60 cases, the qualifier is "must be a running back". And this is our projection model? Forget age, forget career carries, forget previous injuries, forget games started. LJs 2006 was utterly unique. 27 years old, 1st time starter, 400 carries, under 30 NFL starts. Has NEVER happened before. I could go find every 320-325 carry RB, find how they did when they played at 4pm on Sundays, then come up with lots of worrisome theories about 2007. Sure my sample size is 7 RBs, but what does that really matter? Actually, a lot. Not to mention how horribly contaminated the "data" footballoutsiders use. NFL game logs? They really are outsiders.So forget counting ACTUAL hits. If you run out of bounds, that's the same as getting blasted by a LB. And that's the foundation of our research? I mean really? Forget count ACTUAL hits, lets just count carries. Because a) we don't have the real data b) it's a lot faster to come up with crazy theories. It's simply not valid. It's utterly laughable to be honest. LT actually goes out of bounds a crazy amount of times. Are his 350 carries = Rudi's 350 carries? Rudi might get hit a *100* more times over a season. But in this model, it's the same. Tell me how many hits were on the legs? On the helmet? Shoulders? Seems like that kind of information might actually be sorta useful. You know if we’re going to project future results based on it. SJAX could have EASILY been hit more then LJ. Someone with 320 carries might have taken the most actual physical abuse. And that's just one problem with this "research". Pull me the numbers on 400 carry RBs who have never been seriously hurt? Also add in < 1,000 career carries. Also add in less then 30 NFL starts. Oh wait, you're sample size is down to 1? Yikes. That might be a problem.
Family Matters
Footballguy
Based on all y/our research we know for a fact that some believe this to be true. Touches/carries/receptions hereafter know as "toucarceptions" have proven to lead to a quantifiable result that in turn yields a result equivalent to something we refer to (from time to time) as fantasy production. With said data we can then research what happened to others that will tell us what will happen to others if they do it again. And if we're right, and you know we are, then we can start a magazine.BTW-What was the question?
Lott's Fingertip
Footballguy
A lot of truth in there... statistics apply in a GENERAL sense; they usually do not perfectly apply to individual situations. Especially with small sample sizes.NFL Live addressed this when talking about Larry Johnson's possible holdout (whether or not it's a good idea for KC to spend big money on him), and they talked about his workload and compared him to Jamal Anderson. They then showed the play that Jamal tore his ACL.... he wasn't even hit. It was a fluke, just like McNabb jogging out of bounds last year, or Testaverde tearing his Achilles while dropping back. Was Jamal's previous workload the cause? Was his ACL weakened from so many hits? If he got 75 fewer carries, would he be fine? I'm not so sure.... it just seemed kind of flukish.There is SOMETHING to RBs having excessive workloads... but I think it takes more than a few seasons to really have an effect. I would not worry at all about LJ based on his previous workload for at least another 2-3 years. Even then, he'll need to be showing some sort of effect, nagging sprains or swelling, for me to consider it at all.Family Matters
Footballguy
Well said. I think it's easier for people to apply a generalization to every similar situation. In doing so they forget that every individual is different.
NFL Live addressed this when talking about Larry Johnson's possible holdout (whether or not it's a good idea for KC to spend big money on him), and they talked about his workload and compared him to Jamal Anderson. They then showed the play that Jamal tore his ACL.... he wasn't even hit. It was a fluke, just like McNabb jogging out of bounds last year, or Testaverde tearing his Achilles while dropping back.
Was Jamal's previous workload the cause? Was his ACL weakened from so many hits? If he got 75 fewer carries, would he be fine? I'm not so sure.... it just seemed kind of flukish.
There is SOMETHING to RBs having excessive workloads... but I think it takes more than a few seasons to really have an effect. I would not worry at all about LJ based on his previous workload for at least another 2-3 years. Even then, he'll need to be showing some sort of effect, nagging sprains or swelling, for me to consider it at all.
Lott's Fingertip
Footballguy
Kind of reminds me of a bumper sticker: "You are special and unique, just like everybody else" or something to that effect.
Dancing Bear
Footballguy
OOC,
One other thing about statistics [even if the sample size is reasonable]. There is still a probability for events outside the expected outcome to occur. This is why guys like Eric Dickerson and Emmitt Smith both consistently performed beyond the statistical implications. No one here can say whether LJ is going to be another one of these guys or whether he falls into line with the presumed statistical data.
Keep in mind also that LJ had an incredibly light carries load at Penn State ...
1999 - 43
2000 - 75
2001 - 71
2002 - 271
Total - 460
and then at KC ...
2003 - 20
2004 - 120
2005 - 336
2006 - 416
From a carries perspective in football, LJ is a very young 27 all things considered.
One other thing about statistics [even if the sample size is reasonable]. There is still a probability for events outside the expected outcome to occur. This is why guys like Eric Dickerson and Emmitt Smith both consistently performed beyond the statistical implications. No one here can say whether LJ is going to be another one of these guys or whether he falls into line with the presumed statistical data.
Keep in mind also that LJ had an incredibly light carries load at Penn State ...
1999 - 43
2000 - 75
2001 - 71
2002 - 271
Total - 460
and then at KC ...
2003 - 20
2004 - 120
2005 - 336
2006 - 416
From a carries perspective in football, LJ is a very young 27 all things considered.
msommer
Footballguy
Shouldn't ypu be in the FFA?
M
MelvinTScupper
Guest
I'm not here much, but when I am....BOOM goes the dynamite.msommer said:Shouldn't ypu be in the FFA?
bcr8f
Footballguy
M
MelvinTScupper
Guest
:whoosh: You can't prove anything in football due to sample sizes, but you can prove a trend? The data is flawed, the sample sizes are too small, and the conclusions are useless.
Show me how many times a running back got HIT by a defender. I don't care if there was a penalty, I don't care if he dropped the ball due to being hit, I don't care if they blew the whistle before the play. If you're going to talk about punishment = injury concern, then get real data. Instead of picking something sorta close, that might work, some of the time, with no idea the margin of error.
If the data is crap, then you can just stop there. Carries are being used because we don't have actual data of hits. And that's what we're using to predict the future? It’s beyond absurd.
You know the saying: two is a coincidence, three is a pattern, four is a trend.
We're talking about what's already happened. No, I can't prove that the trend means anything for the next player - but what's there is there.
Yes, the data is flawed -- it always is. By your logic, all social science is useless, because there will always be flaws in the data or the sample size. To put it another way - if George Santayana were here, would you ask him to prove that if you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it?
We're talking about what's already happened. No, I can't prove that the trend means anything for the next player - but what's there is there.
Yes, the data is flawed -- it always is. By your logic, all social science is useless, because there will always be flaws in the data or the sample size. To put it another way - if George Santayana were here, would you ask him to prove that if you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it?
M
MelvinTScupper
Guest
Who are the 4?
Joe T
Footballguy
I think that it would probably be a good idea.
M
MelvinTScupper
Guest
I guess I'm a genius
Similar threads
