Abstract Way to Define a Dominant RB (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

There has been a lot of talk in other thread debating who was a "dominant" RB and why. Similarly, that crept into threads discussing potential HOFers.

What I did was look at all 91 modern era RB that have had 5,000 career rushing yards and EXTRACTED their Top 5 seasons in rushing yards, rushing TD, receiving yards, receiving TD, total yards, TD, and total fantasy points.

To be clear, I took the 5 highest totals in each categoy REGARDLESS of which season that number appeared in.

For example, for Curtis Martin, his 5 best rushing seasons were 2004, 2001, 1995, 1999, and 2003. But his best receiving yardage years were 2000, 1998, 2002, 1996, and 1997. Again, I used the Top 5 seasons in that particular category no matter what year those Top 5 best seasons occurred in.

The object is to see which backs accumulated the best numbers in those 5 years (granted in several different categories). Since each player has the same number of seasons in each category (5), there should not be major hurdles in saying things are not fair.

Of course, there still are some flaws--there are players across all eras and a yard in the early 70s was harder to get than a yard in 2005. Similarly, players from pre-1978 played in 12 or 14 games a year vs the 16 played today. But overall, it would give us a general idea as to how good each back was (at least statistically).

Here are the Top 10 in each category (and the Top 50 for fantasy points scored) . . .

Rushing yards

Dickerson 8704

Sanders 8537

Payton 8157

ESmith 8019

JBrown 7788

Campbell 7758

Simpson 7699

James 7575

Alexander 7504

Martin 7469

Rushing TDs

ESmith 89

Alexander 87

Holmes 77

JBrown 73

Tomlinson 72

Dickerson 69

Riggins 68

Campbell 67

JTaylor 66

Sanders 65

Receiving Yards

Faulk 4088

Craig 3341

Walker 3167

Garner 3087

Barber 3080

JWilliams 3062

Daniels 2919

Thomas 2845

MAllen 2766

Mitchell 2763

Receiving TDs

Faulk 29

Daniels 23

Foreman 22

JBrooks 22

BBrown 20

CHill 20

NAnderson 19

Thomas 18

LBrown 18

JWilliams 16

JBrown 16

Yards from Scrimmage

Faulk 10811

Payton 10488

Sanders 10316

Dickerson 10170

Barber 10066

James 9929

Tomlinson 9753

ESmith 9742

JBrown 9700

Thomas 9598

Rushing & Receiving TDs

Alexander 98

Smith 98

Faulk 91

JBrown 89

Holmes 85

Tomlinson 80

Riggins 78

JTaylor 75

Dickerson 75

MAllen 74

Payton 74

Sanders 74

Fantasy Points

1 Faulk 1627.1

2 Smith 1562.2

3 JBrown 1504

4 Payton 1492.8

5 Sanders 1475.6

6 Alexander 1473

7 Dickerson 1467

8 Tomlinson 1455.3

9 James 1412.9

10 Holmes 1404.7

11 Martin 1337.7

12 Barber 1336.6

13 Thomas 1319.8

14 MAllen 1286.8

15 Watters 1286.5

16 Simpson 1277.4

17 Green 1269.6

18 Campbell 1246.2

19 OAnderson 1221

20 George 1216.9

21 TDavis 1214.4

22 Dorsett 1201.4

23 Craig 1189.2

24 JTaylor 1188.7

25 Riggins 1174.1

26 FTaylor 1169.6

27 Dillon 1163.2

28 Foreman 1159.7

29 Walker 1151.3

30 Bettis 1111

31 Williams 1110

32 Montgomery 1106.2

33 SDavis 1098.1

34 TAllen 1097.4

35 Warren 1093.7

36 Warner 1086.9

37 Harris 1086.6

38 NAnderson 1078.7

39 Andrews 1078.4

40 JBrooks 1073.5

41 Mitchell 1061.8

42 Dunn 1056.8

43 Riggs 1032

44 Tyler 1028.2

45 Garner 1024.7

46 Daniels 1023.3

47 Lewis 1019.9

48 Byner 1014.1

49 Kelly 1006.9

50 Portis 999.9

Note that Portis at #50 only has played for 4 seasons, so whatever he does in 2006 gets added directly to his total.

I'm not sure that this really proves anything, nor will it stop debates on players in question. However, I think it does tend to show who was very good in their peak years.

 

[dgreen]

Note that Portis at #50 only has played for 4 seasons, so whatever he does in 2006 gets added directly to his total.

Portis was a guy that jumped to mind when I saw your criteria since he doesn't have five years yet. An average year next year, and he'll be top 10 on this Rushing Yards list and top 20 in FP.Any idea how many of these players' top five seasons come from their first five seasons? If it wasn't for the '82 strike, Earl Campbell might have been one.

 

[Tau837]

What I did was look at all 91 modern era RB that have had 5,000 career rushing yards and EXTRACTED their Top 5 seasons in rushing yards, rushing TD, receiving yards, receiving TD, total yards, TD, and total fantasy points.To be clear, I took the 5 highest totals in each categoy REGARDLESS of which season that number appeared in.For example, for Curtis Martin, his 5 best rushing seasons were 2004, 2001, 1995, 1999, and 2003. But his best receiving yardage years were 2000, 1998, 2002, 1996, and 1997. Again, I used the Top 5 seasons in that particular category no matter what year those Top 5 best seasons occurred in.The object is to see which backs accumulated the best numbers in those 5 years (granted in several different categories). Since each player has the same number of seasons in each category (5), there should not be major hurdles in saying things are not fair.Of course, there still are some flaws--there are players across all eras and a yard in the early 70s was harder to get than a yard in 2005. Similarly, players from pre-1978 played in 12 or 14 games a year vs the 16 played today. But overall, it would give us a general idea as to how good each back was (at least statistically).

1. It seems to me that you could easily adjust your study to overcome some of the limitations.For example, once you identify the seasons, why not use per game averages? That would eliminate the 12/14/16 game season problem.Also, why use fantasy points instead of VBD? VBD would compare much better across eras, would it not?2. Why 5 seasons? Why not 2, 3, or 4? If you are merely trying to judge peak value, I think 5 years is too long. For example, it doesn't truly measure the dominance that Terrell Davis and Priest Holmes had over 3 year stretches, yet their peak values were among the best in league history.

 

[jurb26]

2. Why 5 seasons? Why not 2, 3, or 4? If you are merely trying to judge peak value, I think 5 years is too long. For example, it doesn't truly measure the dominance that Terrell Davis and Priest Holmes had over 3 year stretches, yet their peak values were among the best in league history.

I would like to see a 3 year window.

 

[dgreen]

2. Why 5 seasons? Why not 2, 3, or 4? If you are merely trying to judge peak value, I think 5 years is too long. For example, it doesn't truly measure the dominance that Terrell Davis and Priest Holmes had over 3 year stretches, yet their peak values were among the best in league history.

You can argue 5 years is too long, but simply saying 5 years hurts guys like TD and Priest because they were really good for 3 years aren't good reasons. Why is 3 better than 5?If I remember correctly, the average NFL career is like 4 years, so I don't think summing 5 years is too much when trying to determine dominance. If you have a dominant career, you should have more good years than the average player has total years, IMO.

 

[jurb26]

2. Why 5 seasons? Why not 2, 3, or 4? If you are merely trying to judge peak value, I think 5 years is too long. For example, it doesn't truly measure the dominance that Terrell Davis and Priest Holmes had over 3 year stretches, yet their peak values were among the best in league history.

You can argue 5 years is too long, but simply saying 5 years hurts guys like TD and Priest because they were really good for 3 years aren't good reasons. Why is 3 better than 5?If I remember correctly, the average NFL career is like 4 years, so I don't think summing 5 years is too much when trying to determine dominance. If you have a dominant career, you should have more good years than the average player has total years, IMO.

I, personally, think that the 3 year window would more accuratly show dominance at each players peak. That does not mean that this is the most viable thing to concider for HoF, only that IMO 5 years dilutes the sample.

 

[David Yudkin]

The intent in using 5 years was to reward players that played a decent amount of time and weed out some of the guys that were good for 3 years. Similarly, to really be a HOFer, I would think you need to have played 5 years or more.

 

[David Yudkin]

2. Why 5 seasons?  Why not 2, 3, or 4?  If you are merely trying to judge peak value, I think 5 years is too long.  For example, it doesn't truly measure the dominance that Terrell Davis and Priest Holmes had over 3 year stretches, yet their peak values were among the best in league history.

You can argue 5 years is too long, but simply saying 5 years hurts guys like TD and Priest because they were really good for 3 years aren't good reasons. Why is 3 better than 5?If I remember correctly, the average NFL career is like 4 years, so I don't think summing 5 years is too much when trying to determine dominance. If you have a dominant career, you should have more good years than the average player has total years, IMO.

I, personally, think that the 3 year window would more accuratly show dominance at each players peak. That does not mean that this is the most viable thing to concider for HoF, only that IMO 5 years dilutes the sample.

Here are the best 3-year spans (using actually data not a "best of" as in the 5-year premise of this thread . . .Faulk 99-01:

4,122 rushing yards, 2,643 receiving yards = 6,765 total yards with 59 TD

1,030.5 fantasy points

Holmes 01-03:

4,590 rushing yards, 1,976 receiving yards = 6,566 total yards with 61 TD

1,022.6 fantasy ppoints

Tomlinson 03-05:

4,442 rushing yards, 1,536 receiving yards = 5,978 total yards with 55 TD (plus 4 passing TD)

949.10 fantasy points

Alexander 03-05:

5,011 rushing yards, 543 receiving yards = 5,554 total yards with 64 TD

939.4 fantasy points

Smith 93-95:

4,743 rushing yards, 1,130 receiving yards = 5,853 total yards with 57 TD

929.3 fantasy points

Davis 96-98:

5,296 rushing yards, 814 receiving yards = 6,110 total yards with 53 TD

929 fantasy points

Dickerson 83-85:

5,147 rushing yards, 669 receiving yards = 5,816 total yards with 46 TD

856.6 fantasy points

Payton 77-79:

4,857 rushing yards, 1,062 receiving yards = 5,919 total yards with 43 TD

849.9 fantasy points

Allen 83-85:

3,941 rushing yards, 1,903 receiving yards = 5,844 total yards with 43 TD

842.4 fantasy points

Green 01-03:

4,510 rushing yards, 1,354 receiving yards = 5,864 total yards with 40 TD

826.4 fantasy points

Sanders 89-91:

4,322 rushing yards, 1,069 receiving yards = 5,391 total yards with 47 TD

821.1 fantasy points

Thomas 90-92:

4,191 rushing yards, 1,789 receiving yards = 5,980 total yards with 37 TD

820 fantasy points

Note that some of these guys could have had more than one 3-year stretch (with overlapping seasons).

 

[Tau837]

2. Why 5 seasons?  Why not 2, 3, or 4?  If you are merely trying to judge peak value, I think 5 years is too long.  For example, it doesn't truly measure the dominance that Terrell Davis and Priest Holmes had over 3 year stretches, yet their peak values were among the best in league history.

You can argue 5 years is too long, but simply saying 5 years hurts guys like TD and Priest because they were really good for 3 years aren't good reasons. Why is 3 better than 5?If I remember correctly, the average NFL career is like 4 years, so I don't think summing 5 years is too much when trying to determine dominance. If you have a dominant career, you should have more good years than the average player has total years, IMO.

The best way I can describe it involves examples like I used. When I think of dominant peak periods for RBs, Holmes & Davis come immediately to mind along with a handful of others, but they aren't appropriately represented here.To take those examples further, you can use many criteria to judge HOF worthiness, and peak value is certainly one of them. IMO that is one criteria that guys like Holmes & Davis have going for them. It is other criteria that are related to longevity that hurt them. Yet this "peak value" rating doesn't show them as having it.

The average length of career for HOF RBs is just less than 11 seasons. Is it logical that peak value is half a player's career? I would expect a normal HOF career progression to include a few seasons that were true "peak" or elite seasons, several good to very good seasons, and possibly a couple average or even below average seasons to close out a career. To me, peak < 5.

Trying to define this criteria reminds me of Bill James' Win Shares system devised to rank baseball players. IIRC from memory, he uses a combination of career total WS, best 3 years of WS, and best 5 consecutive years of WS. To apply a similar system to football may require reducing the number of years in the latter two, since the average HOF football career is shorter than the average HOF baseball career. (I'm assuming that, anyway.)

 

[trader jake]

The intent in using 5 years was to reward players that played a decent amount of time and weed out some of the guys that were good for 3 years. Similarly, to really be a HOFer, I would think you need to have played 5 years or more.

i agree that 5 years is a much better gauge. for 3 consecutive seasons many teams can keep it together and an above average player can benefit and statistically appear dominant, but a HOF can do it over a full 5 year stretch (and if it's not 5 consecutive years that is an even better indicator that the player in question is a all-time great)

 

[cstu]

These the top 50 RB's in career fantasy points scored, sorted by fantasy points per game. Some guys not on the list: Portis (#90, 16.8), Sims (#93, 16.7), Ricky Williams (#55, 14.7), and Jamal Lewis (#89, 13.6)F PT/G RANK NAME19.1 - 25 - Jim Brown18.7 - 30 - LaDainian Tomlinson17.3 - 23 - Edgerrin James16.2 - 5 - Barry Sanders15.8 - 26 - Shaun Alexander15.8 - 46 - Terrell Davis15.5 - 3 - Marshall Faulk15.4 - 22 - Priest Holmes15.1 - 2 - Walter Payton14.5 - 9 - Eric Dickerson14.2 - 36 - Fred Taylor14.2 - 1 - Emmitt Smith14.1 - 13 - Ricky Watters14.0 - 6 - Curtis Martin13.4 - 32 - Jim Taylor13.2 - 16 - O.J. Simpson12.7 - 31 - Earl Campbell12.5 - 8 - Tony Dorsett12.5 - 37 - Chuck Foreman12.5 - 21 - Corey Dillon12.5 - 19 - Tiki Barber12.2 - 40 - Chuck Muncie12.2 - 18 - Eddie George12.1 - 38 - Ahman Green12.0 - 7 - Thurman Thomas11.9 - 4 - Marcus Allen11.9 - 47 - Wilbert Montgomery11.8 - 11 - Franco Harris11.7 - 12 - John Riggins11.4 - 42 - Neal Anderson11.3 - 28 - Terry Allen11.3 - 49 - Lydell Mitchell11.3 - 27 - Warrick Dunn10.9 - 29 - Leroy Kelly10.9 - 10 - Jerome Bettis10.7 - 35 - Gerald Riggs10.6 - 17 - Roger Craig10.4 - 41 - Stephen Davis10.2 - 14 - Ottis Anderson10.1 - 24 - James Brooks9.8 - 33 - Freeman McNeil9.6 - 15 - Herschel Walker9.6 - 50 - James Wilder9.4 - 34 - Charlie Garner8.9 - 44 - Larry Csonka8.3 - 48 - Mike Pruitt8.2 - 45 - Calvin Hill8.1 - 20 - Earnest Byner8.1 - 43 - Chris Warren7.0 - 39 - Bill Brown

 

[cstu]

More fuel for the Bettis HOF fire:11.8 - 11 - Franco Harris11.7 - 12 - John Riggins10.9 - 10 - Jerome Bettis

 

[tommyboy]

These the top 50 RB's in career fantasy points scored, sorted by fantasy points per game. Some guys not on the list: Portis (#90, 16.8), Sims (#93, 16.7), Ricky Williams (#55, 14.7), and Jamal Lewis (#89, 13.6)

F PT/G RANK NAME

19.1 - 25 - Jim Brown HOF

18.7 - 30 - LaDainian Tomlinson HOF*

17.3 - 23 - Edgerrin James HOF*

16.2 - 5 - Barry Sanders HOF

15.8 - 26 - Shaun Alexander HOF*

15.8 - 46 - Terrell Davis HOF*

15.5 - 3 - Marshall Faulk HOF*

15.4 - 22 - Priest Holmes HOF*

15.1 - 2 - Walter Payton HOF

14.5 - 9 - Eric Dickerson HOF

14.2 - 36 - Fred Taylor ???

14.2 - 1 - Emmitt Smith HOF*

14.1 - 13 - Ricky Watters

14.0 - 6 - Curtis Martin HOF*

13.4 - 32 - Jim Taylor HOF

13.2 - 16 - O.J. Simpson HOF

12.7 - 31 - Earl Campbell HOF

12.5 - 8 - Tony Dorsett HOF

12.5 - 37 - Chuck Foreman

12.5 - 21 - Corey Dillon

12.5 - 19 - Tiki Barber HOF*

12.2 - 40 - Chuck Muncie

12.2 - 18 - Eddie George

12.1 - 38 - Ahman Green

12.0 - 7 - Thurman Thomas HOF*

11.9 - 4 - Marcus Allen HOF

11.9 - 47 - Wilbert Montgomery

11.8 - 11 - Franco Harris HOF

11.7 - 12 - John Riggins HOF

11.4 - 42 - Neal Anderson

11.3 - 28 - Terry Allen

11.3 - 49 - Lydell Mitchell

11.3 - 27 - Warrick Dunn

10.9 - 29 - Leroy Kelly

10.9 - 10 - Jerome Bettis

10.7 - 35 - Gerald Riggs

10.6 - 17 - Roger Craig

10.4 - 41 - Stephen Davis

10.2 - 14 - Ottis Anderson

10.1 - 24 - James Brooks

9.8 - 33 - Freeman McNeil

9.6 - 15 - Herschel Walker

9.6 - 50 - James Wilder

9.4 - 34 - Charlie Garner

8.9 - 44 - Larry Csonka HOF

8.3 - 48 - Mike Pruitt

8.2 - 45 - Calvin Hill

8.1 - 20 - Earnest Byner

8.1 - 43 - Chris Warren

7.0 - 39 - Bill Brown

the * denotes "projected" Hall of Famer.Bettis seals his Hall of Fame selection if and when Pittsburgh wins Super Bowl XL.

 

[pinequick]

To take those examples further, you can use many criteria to judge HOF worthiness, and peak value is certainly one of them. IMO that is one criteria that guys like Holmes & Davis have going for them. It is other criteria that are related to longevity that hurt them. Yet this "peak value" rating doesn't show them as having it.

The sure-fire HOF guys have both--high peaks and extended periods of dominance. They are borne out in Yudkin's analysis.You are exactly right; the supporters of causes like Davis and Holmes would use the "Gayle Sayers theorem"--that they were *so* good for a couple or three years. But it is because of that that those guys are NOT sure-fire HOFers. Brilliance, but not sustained brilliance.

 

[pinequick]

These the top 50 RB's in career fantasy points scored, sorted by fantasy points per game. Some guys not on the list: Portis (#90, 16.8), Sims (#93, 16.7), Ricky Williams (#55, 14.7), and Jamal Lewis (#89, 13.6)

F PT/G RANK NAME

19.1 - 25 - Jim Brown HOF

18.7 - 30 - LaDainian Tomlinson HOF*

17.3 - 23 - Edgerrin James HOF*

16.2 - 5 - Barry Sanders HOF

15.8 - 26 - Shaun Alexander HOF*

15.8 - 46 - Terrell Davis HOF*

15.5 - 3 - Marshall Faulk HOF*

15.4 - 22 - Priest Holmes HOF*

15.1 - 2 - Walter Payton HOF

14.5 - 9 - Eric Dickerson HOF

14.2 - 36 - Fred Taylor ???

14.2 - 1 - Emmitt Smith HOF*

14.1 - 13 - Ricky Watters

14.0 - 6 - Curtis Martin HOF*

13.4 - 32 - Jim Taylor HOF

13.2 - 16 - O.J. Simpson HOF

12.7 - 31 - Earl Campbell HOF

12.5 - 8 - Tony Dorsett HOF

12.5 - 37 - Chuck Foreman

12.5 - 21 - Corey Dillon

12.5 - 19 - Tiki Barber HOF*

12.2 - 40 - Chuck Muncie

12.2 - 18 - Eddie George

12.1 - 38 - Ahman Green

12.0 - 7 - Thurman Thomas HOF*

11.9 - 4 - Marcus Allen HOF

11.9 - 47 - Wilbert Montgomery

11.8 - 11 - Franco Harris HOF

11.7 - 12 - John Riggins HOF

11.4 - 42 - Neal Anderson

11.3 - 28 - Terry Allen

11.3 - 49 - Lydell Mitchell

11.3 - 27 - Warrick Dunn

10.9 - 29 - Leroy Kelly

10.9 - 10 - Jerome Bettis

10.7 - 35 - Gerald Riggs

10.6 - 17 - Roger Craig

10.4 - 41 - Stephen Davis

10.2 - 14 - Ottis Anderson

10.1 - 24 - James Brooks

9.8 - 33 - Freeman McNeil

9.6 - 15 - Herschel Walker

9.6 - 50 - James Wilder

9.4 - 34 - Charlie Garner

8.9 - 44 - Larry Csonka HOF

8.3 - 48 - Mike Pruitt

8.2 - 45 - Calvin Hill

8.1 - 20 - Earnest Byner

8.1 - 43 - Chris Warren

7.0 - 39 - Bill Brown

the * denotes "projected" Hall of Famer.Bettis seals his Hall of Fame selection if and when Pittsburgh wins Super Bowl XL.

Is this list the primary criteria for this conclusion? If so, it seems that Ricky Watters, Corey Dillon, Eddie George, and Warrick Dunn had better be inducted before the Bus gets in. . .

 

[Cookiemonster]

To take those examples further, you can use many criteria to judge HOF worthiness, and peak value is certainly one of them.  IMO that is one criteria that guys like Holmes & Davis have going for them.  It is other criteria that are related to longevity that hurt them.  Yet this "peak value" rating doesn't show them as having it.

The sure-fire HOF guys have both--high peaks and extended periods of dominance. They are borne out in Yudkin's analysis.You are exactly right; the supporters of causes like Davis and Holmes would use the "Gayle Sayers theorem"--that they were *so* good for a couple or three years. But it is because of that that those guys are NOT sure-fire HOFers. Brilliance, but not sustained brilliance.

Exactly. While I will say that Bo Jackson was the most talented and dominant RB I've ever watched, I don't know that I'd give him a HOF vote.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Did any back ever have a more impressive vulture than Jim Taylor? I mean with Hornung back there as well it's amazing how high up the list Taylor is in points per game.

 

[Sam Quentin]

To me a "dominant" RB should have the followig characteristicsHigh Conversion rate on 3rd/4th and 2 or less.High number of first downsHigh number of carries > 20 yds (HR threat)High percentage of carries 4 yards or more and 5 yards or more on first and 10.all of the above, but applied to receptions.If there was a good way to measure blocking, (blitz pickup %) I'd be all for including that too.

 

[David Yudkin]

To me a "dominant" RB should have the followig characteristics

High Conversion rate on 3rd/4th and 2 or less.

High number of first downs

High number of carries > 20 yds (HR threat)

High percentage of carries 4 yards or more and 5 yards or more on first and 10.

all of the above, but applied to receptions.

If there was a good way to measure blocking, (blitz pickup %) I'd be all for including that too.

If you have sources that accurately can provide all that pertinent data from the past 50 years, that would be a great system. However, I doubt there are records avaialble that detailed for more than the past few seasons.

 

[Tau837]

These the top 50 RB's in career fantasy points scored, sorted by fantasy points per game. Some guys not on the list: Portis (#90, 16.8), Sims (#93, 16.7), Ricky Williams (#55, 14.7), and Jamal Lewis (#89, 13.6)

F PT/G RANK NAME

19.1 - 25 - Jim Brown

18.7 - 30 - LaDainian Tomlinson

17.3 - 23 - Edgerrin James

16.2 - 5 - Barry Sanders

15.8 - 26 - Shaun Alexander

15.8 - 46 - Terrell Davis

15.5 - 3 - Marshall Faulk

15.4 - 22 - Priest Holmes

15.1 - 2 - Walter Payton

14.5 - 9 - Eric Dickerson

14.2 - 36 - Fred Taylor

14.2 - 1 - Emmitt Smith

14.1 - 13 - Ricky Watters

14.0 - 6 - Curtis Martin

13.4 - 32 - Jim Taylor

13.2 - 16 - O.J. Simpson

12.7 - 31 - Earl Campbell

12.5 - 8 - Tony Dorsett

12.5 - 37 - Chuck Foreman

12.5 - 21 - Corey Dillon

12.5 - 19 - Tiki Barber

12.2 - 40 - Chuck Muncie

12.2 - 18 - Eddie George

12.1 - 38 - Ahman Green

12.0 - 7 - Thurman Thomas

11.9 - 4 - Marcus Allen

11.9 - 47 - Wilbert Montgomery

11.8 - 11 - Franco Harris

11.7 - 12 - John Riggins

11.4 - 42 - Neal Anderson

11.3 - 28 - Terry Allen

11.3 - 49 - Lydell Mitchell

11.3 - 27 - Warrick Dunn

10.9 - 29 - Leroy Kelly

10.9 - 10 - Jerome Bettis

10.7 - 35 - Gerald Riggs

10.6 - 17 - Roger Craig

10.4 - 41 - Stephen Davis

10.2 - 14 - Ottis Anderson

10.1 - 24 - James Brooks

9.8 - 33 - Freeman McNeil

9.6 - 15 - Herschel Walker

9.6 - 50 - James Wilder

9.4 - 34 - Charlie Garner

8.9 - 44 - Larry Csonka

8.3 - 48 - Mike Pruitt

8.2 - 45 - Calvin Hill

8.1 - 20 - Earnest Byner

8.1 - 43 - Chris Warren

7.0 - 39 - Bill Brown

Wouldn't VBD be a better measure than fantasy points, since it would show relative value and thus compare better across eras?

 

[Tau837]

To take those examples further, you can use many criteria to judge HOF worthiness, and peak value is certainly one of them.  IMO that is one criteria that guys like Holmes & Davis have going for them.  It is other criteria that are related to longevity that hurt them.  Yet this "peak value" rating doesn't show them as having it.

The sure-fire HOF guys have both--high peaks and extended periods of dominance. They are borne out in Yudkin's analysis.You are exactly right; the supporters of causes like Davis and Holmes would use the "Gayle Sayers theorem"--that they were *so* good for a couple or three years. But it is because of that that those guys are NOT sure-fire HOFers. Brilliance, but not sustained brilliance.

I think you may have misinterpreted me. I don't think either Davis or Holmes should make the HOF (assuming Priest is essentially done). That is because I think peak performance is only one of several criteria that contribute to HOF worthiness. But I definitely think Davis and Holmes had that outstanding peak performance. The reason they don't deserve to be in the HOF is due to other criteria.The fact that this method of measuring "peak" performance does not show Davis & Holmes as being amongst the best peak performers makes it a poor measure of peak performance IMO.

 

[Tau837]

To take those examples further, you can use many criteria to judge HOF worthiness, and peak value is certainly one of them.  IMO that is one criteria that guys like Holmes & Davis have going for them.  It is other criteria that are related to longevity that hurt them.  Yet this "peak value" rating doesn't show them as having it.

The sure-fire HOF guys have both--high peaks and extended periods of dominance. They are borne out in Yudkin's analysis.You are exactly right; the supporters of causes like Davis and Holmes would use the "Gayle Sayers theorem"--that they were *so* good for a couple or three years. But it is because of that that those guys are NOT sure-fire HOFers. Brilliance, but not sustained brilliance.

Exactly. While I will say that Bo Jackson was the most talented and dominant RB I've ever watched, I don't know that I'd give him a HOF vote.

Peak performance and elite talent are two different things. Bo Jackson isn't a consideration here.

 

[Tau837]

To me a "dominant" RB should have the followig characteristics

High Conversion rate on 3rd/4th and 2 or less.

High number of first downs

High number of carries > 20 yds (HR threat)

High percentage of carries 4 yards or more and 5 yards or more on first and 10.

all of the above, but applied to receptions.

If there was a good way to measure blocking, (blitz pickup %) I'd be all for including that too.

If you are suggesting that every dominant RB would meet all of these criteria, then there are many HOF RBs that would not be considered dominant.I also find it interesting that you didn't mention TDs. I assume that was intentional.

 

[dgreen]

The average length of career for HOF RBs is just less than 11 seasons. Is it logical that peak value is half a player's career? I would expect a normal HOF career progression to include a few seasons that were true "peak" or elite seasons, several good to very good seasons, and possibly a couple average or even below average seasons to close out a career. To me, peak < 5.

Maybe this is where we differ. I don't think peak = elite. You can have a peak that is nothing more than average. Peak doesn't refer to how good the peak was. If the average HOF RB plays about 11 seasons, I don't see comparing the best 5 years as being excessive.

 

[David Yudkin]

To take those examples further, you can use many criteria to judge HOF worthiness, and peak value is certainly one of them.  IMO that is one criteria that guys like Holmes & Davis have going for them.  It is other criteria that are related to longevity that hurt them.  Yet this "peak value" rating doesn't show them as having it.

The sure-fire HOF guys have both--high peaks and extended periods of dominance. They are borne out in Yudkin's analysis.You are exactly right; the supporters of causes like Davis and Holmes would use the "Gayle Sayers theorem"--that they were *so* good for a couple or three years. But it is because of that that those guys are NOT sure-fire HOFers. Brilliance, but not sustained brilliance.

I think you may have misinterpreted me. I don't think either Davis or Holmes should make the HOF (assuming Priest is essentially done). That is because I think peak performance is only one of several criteria that contribute to HOF worthiness. But I definitely think Davis and Holmes had that outstanding peak performance. The reason they don't deserve to be in the HOF is due to other criteria.The fact that this method of measuring "peak" performance does not show Davis & Holmes as being amongst the best peak performers makes it a poor measure of peak performance IMO.

While there is little doubt that TDavis and Holmes were top sehelf production wise for a 3-year stretch, they effectively did not have much else over their careers. Yes, Holmes had another 1,000 yard rushing season in Baltimore and did weel in two half seasons in KC, but as a hole he's still mostly a 3-year guy in my book.As I mentioned earlier, I think a player really needs 5 solid seasons to be a bonafide HOFer (thus the concept of the thread). Using this system from this thread at least levels the playing field in pushing guys that couldn't have 5 good years to the pack of the pack, and does the same for guys that were very good for a long time. What's left, IMO, is a more representative list of who was best at his peak AND DID NOT BURN OUT QUICKLY.

I agree that value should be incorporated (and we had several threads on this last season). I can see if I can find the info from last year, as my mantra last year was to prove that a yard in 1974 was harder to get than a yard in 2004 and that stats really needed to be adjusted for inflation.

No matter what, I think it is all but impossible to compare players from different er4as, as not all the same factors remained constant. But it is fun to hypothesize . . .