Compare these RB statistics (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

For each pair of RBs, which season do you think is better?

rsh	ryd	 rtd   ypc	 rec   ryd	 ypr	rtd	RB1	300	1300	12	4.33	20	100	 5.00	1RB2	300	1075	 8	3.58	50	500	10.00	3							RB1	200	1000	13	5.00	40	300	 7.50	1RB2	200	1000	 3	5.00	50	450	 9.00	1									RB1	375	1500	11	4.00	30	275	 9.17	1RB2	315	1320	11	4.19	30	275	 9.17	1							RB1	320	1350	 8	4.22	30	300	10.00	2RB2	250	1150	 7	4.60	60	455	 7.58	2

And, roughly, which three or four RB seasons are best or worst or both?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

For each pair of RBs, which season do you think is better?

rsh	ryd	 rtd   ypc	 rec   ryd	 ypr	rtd	RB1	300	1300	12	4.33	20	100	 5.00	1RB2	300	1075	 8	3.58	50	500	10.00	3							RB1	200	1000	13	5.00	40	300	 7.50	1RB2	200	1000	 3	5.00	50	450	 9.00	1									RB1	375	1500	11	4.00	30	275	 9.17	1RB2	315	1320	11	4.19	30	275	 9.17	1							RB1	320	1350	 8	4.22	30	300	10.00	2RB2	250	1150	 7	4.60	60	455	 7.58	2

And, roughly, which three or four RB seasons are best or worst or both?

Almost looks like a conjoint... 1st pair: no difference2nd pair: RB1 by a mile3rd pair: RB1 slightly4th pair: RB1 slightlyBest seasons: 3rd pair, RB13rd pair, RB2 1st and 2nd pair, both RB1s (tied)

 

[Chase Stuart]

For each pair of RBs, which season do you think is better?

rsh	ryd	 rtd   ypc	 rec   ryd	 ypr	rtd	RB1	300	1300	12	4.33	20	100	 5.00	1RB2	300	1075	 8	3.58	50	500	10.00	3							RB1	200	1000	13	5.00	40	300	 7.50	1RB2	200	1000	 3	5.00	50	450	 9.00	1									RB1	375	1500	11	4.00	30	275	 9.17	1RB2	315	1320	11	4.19	30	275	 9.17	1							RB1	320	1350	 8	4.22	30	300	10.00	2RB2	250	1150	 7	4.60	60	455	 7.58	2

And, roughly, which three or four RB seasons are best or worst or both?

Almost looks like a conjoint... 1st pair: no difference2nd pair: RB1 by a mile3rd pair: RB1 slightly4th pair: RB1 slightlyBest seasons: 3rd pair, RB13rd pair, RB2 1st and 2nd pair, both RB1s (tied)

Interesting.I've got 2nd pair RB1 well ahead of 1st pair RB1. And second pair RB2 higher as well. Are RB2's three TDs just the kiss of death?

 

[cheese]

Should we assume that you are asking purely from a fantasy perspective?

For instance, I think 2nd pair, RB2 had a pretty solid season as far as his team is concerned. His fantasy owners probably were very disappointed.

 

[David Yudkin]

Chase -

I know you are a big fan of yards gained per play, and IMO there are other factors involved. I'm certainly no expert on evaluating players, but IMO other things that may be worthy of consideration are TD, TD%, turnovers, average totals per game, team success (team wins, playoffs, SB, etc.), realistic scoring opportunities, etc. If a guy only had 3 TD and was used at the goal line and missed scoring a huge majority of the time, that's far worse than a guy scoring 3 TD who was pulled once the team hit the 20 yard line.

Also, percentage of team offense might be a good indicator. For example, if PLAYER X had 1,200 yards but his team only had 4,800, that season might be better than PLAYER Y with 1,300 yards on a team with 7,000 yards.

I know that some of those things are a lot harder to factor in (or even find out), so it makes a simple analysis nearly impossible.

 

[switz]

For each pair of RBs, which season do you think is better?

rsh	ryd	 rtd   ypc	 rec   ryd	 ypr	rtd	RB1	300	1300	12	4.33	20	100	 5.00	1RB2	300	1075	 8	3.58	50	500	10.00	3							RB1	200	1000	13	5.00	40	300	 7.50	1RB2	200	1000	 3	5.00	50	450	 9.00	1									RB1	375	1500	11	4.00	30	275	 9.17	1RB2	315	1320	11	4.19	30	275	 9.17	1							RB1	320	1350	 8	4.22	30	300	10.00	2RB2	250	1150	 7	4.60	60	455	 7.58	2

And, roughly, which three or four RB seasons are best or worst or both?

First pair: RB2, looks like more yards, but 2 fewer TDs, bad YPC but overall game seems better than RB1Second pair: RB1, again fewer yards by 150, but 10 more TDsThird pair: RB1, slightly lower YPC but handled a greater workload, and had more yards, same TDsFourth pair: RB1, more yards, more TDs, better receiverBest seasons?RB1 from pair 3 - 1775 yards and 12 TDsRB1 from pair 4 - 1650 yards, 10 TDsRB2 form pair 3 - 1595 yards, 12 TDs

 

[Chase Stuart]

For each pair of RBs, which season do you think is better?

rsh	ryd	 rtd   ypc	 rec   ryd	 ypr	rtd	RB1	300	1300	12	4.33	20	100	 5.00	1RB2	300	1075	 8	3.58	50	500	10.00	3							RB1	200	1000	13	5.00	40	300	 7.50	1RB2	200	1000	 3	5.00	50	450	 9.00	1									RB1	375	1500	11	4.00	30	275	 9.17	1RB2	315	1320	11	4.19	30	275	 9.17	1							RB1	320	1350	 8	4.22	30	300	10.00	2RB2	250	1150	 7	4.60	60	455	 7.58	2

And, roughly, which three or four RB seasons are best or worst or both?

First pair: RB2, looks like more yards, but 2 fewer TDs, bad YPC but overall game seems better than RB1Second pair: RB1, again fewer yards by 150, but 10 more TDsThird pair: RB1, slightly lower YPC but handled a greater workload, and had more yards, same TDsFourth pair: RB1, more yards, more TDs, better receiverBest seasons?RB1 from pair 3 - 1775 yards and 12 TDsRB1 from pair 4 - 1650 yards, 10 TDsRB2 form pair 3 - 1595 yards, 12 TDs

What about RB2 from pair 4? That's a pretty high YPC, and obviously a good amount of receiving yards, too. I've got him ahead essentially tied with RB1 from his group.

 

[DawnBTVS]

For each pair of RBs, which season do you think is better?

rsh ryd rtd ypc rec ryd ypr rtd RB1 300 1300 12 4.33 20 100 5.00 1RB2 300 1075 8 3.58 50 500 10.00 3 RB1 200 1000 13 5.00 40 300 7.50 1RB2 200 1000 3 5.00 50 450 9.00 1 RB1 375 1500 11 4.00 30 275 9.17 1RB2 315 1320 11 4.19 30 275 9.17 1 RB1 320 1350 8 4.22 30 300 10.00 2RB2 250 1150 7 4.60 60 455 7.58 2And, roughly, which three or four RB seasons are best or worst or both?

Pair 1: RB1 had the higher yard per carry with the same number of carries. He also only had 13 TD vs. 11 for RB2. I'd go with RB2 partly because he has more total touches (350), almost the same number of total TD (11), more total yards (1,575), and a 4.5 yard per touch (vs. 4.375 for RB1)Pair 2: RB1 is the fairly easy choice. He had 14 total TD, 240 touches (only 10 fewer) and 1,300 total yards.

Pair 3: RB1 had far more touches (405) which is largely why I would take him, even though RB2 has the higher yard per touch thanks to his YPC.

Pair 4: Similar to the 1st pairing. I'd probably go with RB2 here since he had 9 total TD (1 fewer) and 1,605 total yards (vs. 1,650 which isn't a huge difference). RB1 averaged 4.71 yard per touch but RB2 averaged 5.18 yard per touch, which gives him the edge for me.

In terms of best seasons...

Pair 2 - RB1

Pair 1 - RB2

Pair 4 - RB2

Pair 3 - RB1

 

[switz]

For each pair of RBs, which season do you think is better?

rsh	ryd	 rtd   ypc	 rec   ryd	 ypr	rtd	RB1	300	1300	12	4.33	20	100	 5.00	1RB2	300	1075	 8	3.58	50	500	10.00	3							RB1	200	1000	13	5.00	40	300	 7.50	1RB2	200	1000	 3	5.00	50	450	 9.00	1									RB1	375	1500	11	4.00	30	275	 9.17	1RB2	315	1320	11	4.19	30	275	 9.17	1							RB1	320	1350	 8	4.22	30	300	10.00	2RB2	250	1150	 7	4.60	60	455	 7.58	2

And, roughly, which three or four RB seasons are best or worst or both?

First pair: RB2, looks like more yards, but 2 fewer TDs, bad YPC but overall game seems better than RB1Second pair: RB1, again fewer yards by 150, but 10 more TDsThird pair: RB1, slightly lower YPC but handled a greater workload, and had more yards, same TDsFourth pair: RB1, more yards, more TDs, better receiverBest seasons?RB1 from pair 3 - 1775 yards and 12 TDsRB1 from pair 4 - 1650 yards, 10 TDsRB2 form pair 3 - 1595 yards, 12 TDs

What about RB2 from pair 4? That's a pretty high YPC, and obviously a good amount of receiving yards, too. I've got him ahead essentially tied with RB1 from his group.

Not bad... but RB1 was better, albeit slightly.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Okay, I'll reveal the methodology here.

First, each pair of RBs are essentially even. Here's their tally:

rsh ryd rtd ypc rec ryd ypr rtd Rsh V Rec V Tot V300 1300 12 4.33 20 100 5.00 1 520 8 528300 1075 8 3.58 50 500 10.00 3 255 274 529 200 1000 13 5.00 40 300 7.50 1 530 106 636200 1000 3 5.00 50 450 9.00 1 430 204 634 375 1500 11 4.00 30 275 9.17 1 485 132 617315 1320 11 4.19 30 275 9.17 1 485 132 617 320 1350 8 4.22 30 300 10.00 2 470 167 637250 1150 7 4.60 60 455 7.58 2 470 168 638The three end columns are rushing value, receiving value, and total value. How do I get each?Rushing value - I give 10 yards for each rushing TD. This is controversial, although some think that's too much, most think it's too little. A good explanation can be found here. So now each RB had their number of rushing yards + 10* their number of rushing TDs. At this point, I have to adjust for the difference in number of carries. I think 3.0 YPC is a very easy barometer to hit -- therefore, each RB gets yards only for their rushing yards over 3.0 YPC. Therefore, RB1 in group 2 was the best. He's got 1130 adjusted rushing yards, and 3.0 YPC * 200 carries = 600. Therefore, he's got 530 adjusted rushing yards above 3.0 --> so he has 530 rushing yards of value. RB1 in group 1 is really close, of course. He had 300 carries, which means he gets credit for all adjusted yards over 900. He had 1300 rushing yards and 12 TDs, so that's 1420 yards --> 520 rushing value.

Does that seem right to you? It feels right to me, but the responses have me curious. It also pits 250-1150 as better than 375-1500 (note that the big carry RB had four more TDs (40 adjusted yards) but only 15 more yards of rushing value). That might seem unfair, but consider that we're talking about 350 rushing yards on just 125 carries -- anybody could do that.

How about receiving? The NFL average adjusted net yards per pass play this past season was 5.11. That means on every pass play, if you hit just 5.11 yards, that's average. I don't want to give receiving RBs too much credit, so while I used a really low baseline for RB ypc (3.0), I'll use average here. So RBs only get points for their yards above that number.

The guy with 50-500-3 had 530 adjusted rushing yards. An average 50 passes would yield 256 yards; therefore, he gets 530-256 = 274 receiving yards in value. Is that fair/right? It also makes the following guys equal -- 30-300 and 60-455. I think most would view the 60-455 guy as better, but in a lot of ways he's adding receiving yards that aren't so valuable. Every reception he has is an opportunity someone else doesn't get, so he should only get credit if he does something good with it.

I then added the two value totals together.

I'm open to suggestions on how to compare RB rushing and receiving numbers. With different numbers of carries, yards, receptions, receiving yards and total TDs, you have to come up with a pretty complicated formula to get just one statistic to use across the board. I'm cautiously comfortable with this metric now, but could use some tweaks. (Fumbles are included, but are irrelevant for this exercise.)

 

[Tau837]

Rushing value - I give 10 yards for each rushing TD. This is controversial, although some think that's too much, most think it's too little. A good explanation can be found here.

It is too little. There is a good discussion about it here: Ranking the QBs — Methodology Discussion. At the end of the posts, Doug finally shows some analysis that reveals that the value of a TD is roughly 14.5 yards, although that is based on some assumptions he describes, and thus could be more in a range of 12 to 15 yards.The post you linked ends with this: "I don’t know if ten is exactly the right answer, but it feels about right." We can do better than that, as shown in the post I linked above.

I assume changing TD worth from 10 yards to 14.5 yards or thereabouts would have a significant effect on your rankings.

 

[Tau837]

At this point, I have to adjust for the difference in number of carries. I think 3.0 YPC is a very easy barometer to hit -- therefore, each RB gets yards only for their rushing yards over 3.0 YPC.

I disagree with this approach. I have three problems with it:1. This would suggest that a RB with 300/1200 rushing and a RB with 150/750 rushing have equal performances. I completely disagree with that. The first RB earned 450 more yards for his team (60% more). And you are ignoring the value of carrying the load. A RB who can carry 300 times for 1200 yards provides more value than just the 1200 yards (assuming he doesn't perform miserably at the goal line or fumble a lot). Consider a ball control offense like the Steelers typically had under Cowher. They were happy with a lot of carries for an average ypc, because of the value of controlling the ball, holding down the score, and keeping the other team's offense off the field.

2. This completely ignores situation. Suppose the two RB examples I gave above were on the same team. Don't you think it is very likely that the difference in ypc between the two RBs would be at least partly attributable to situational usage?

3. More fundamentally, your choice of 3.0 ypc feels arbitrary. You base it only on your belief that it is a "very easy barometer to hit."

Does that seem right to you? It feels right to me, but the responses have me curious. It also pits 250-1150 as better than 375-1500 (note that the big carry RB had four more TDs (40 adjusted yards) but only 15 more yards of rushing value). That might seem unfair, but consider that we're talking about 350 rushing yards on just 125 carries -- anybody could do that.

Again, this doesn't feel right to me. To me this says you are giving credit for stuff that "anybody" could do but wasn't actually done by the RB being ranked. IMO rankings/comparisons need to be about what actually was done on the field, not what might have been done.

 

[Tanner9919]

Chase

why not just take all RB's 3-yr avg and plug that value in to your scoring system and line the RB's up according to total fantasy pts scored , highest to lowest..

all of the math you're going through is bordering on 'paralysis by over-analysis'..if I spent that long to look at numbers that closely, its time for me to find another hobby..

your equations don't factor in perhaps the biggest caveat of all, coaching and/or address changes..in other words, if player X changes from a Martz offense to ,say, a `RB centric` offense ( such as a Norv Turner/Cam Cameron/Parcells offense) , his value and his stats are sure to climb upwards..conversely, if a guy goes to a Martz offense, his rush yard totals are sure to drop significantly, to about 1050 yards...

I mean, if you took a guy like Gore and plugged him in to Denver's offense, he'd probably rush for 1500-1700 and catch 40-50 balls and score about 15 tds...put him in Martz' system, and he's good for about 70-75 recs, 1050 rush yards, 8-10 tds.

A significant drop-off in certain areas...

 

[switz]

Therefore, RB1 in group 2 was the best. He's got 1130 adjusted rushing yards, and 3.0 YPC * 200 carries = 600. Therefore, he's got 530 adjusted rushing yards above 3.0 --> so he has 530 rushing yards of value. RB1 in group 1 is really close, of course. He had 300 carries, which means he gets credit for all adjusted yards over 900. He had 1300 rushing yards and 12 TDs, so that's 1420 yards --> 520 rushing value.Does that seem right to you? It feels right to me, but the responses have me curious.

It seems off to me.... I would never have reached the conclusion you did.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Therefore, RB1 in group 2 was the best. He's got 1130 adjusted rushing yards, and 3.0 YPC * 200 carries = 600. Therefore, he's got 530 adjusted rushing yards above 3.0 --> so he has 530 rushing yards of value. RB1 in group 1 is really close, of course. He had 300 carries, which means he gets credit for all adjusted yards over 900. He had 1300 rushing yards and 12 TDs, so that's 1420 yards --> 520 rushing value.Does that seem right to you? It feels right to me, but the responses have me curious.

It seems off to me.... I would never have reached the conclusion you did.

In your book, 200 carries and 1000 rushing yards is equivalent to 300 carries and how many rushing yards?

 

[Chase Stuart]

At this point, I have to adjust for the difference in number of carries. I think 3.0 YPC is a very easy barometer to hit -- therefore, each RB gets yards only for their rushing yards over 3.0 YPC.

I disagree with this approach. I have three problems with it:1. This would suggest that a RB with 300/1200 rushing and a RB with 150/750 rushing have equal performances. I completely disagree with that. The first RB earned 450 more yards for his team (60% more). And you are ignoring the value of carrying the load. A RB who can carry 300 times for 1200 yards provides more value than just the 1200 yards (assuming he doesn't perform miserably at the goal line or fumble a lot). Consider a ball control offense like the Steelers typically had under Cowher. They were happy with a lot of carries for an average ypc, because of the value of controlling the ball, holding down the score, and keeping the other team's offense off the field.

2. This completely ignores situation. Suppose the two RB examples I gave above were on the same team. Don't you think it is very likely that the difference in ypc between the two RBs would be at least partly attributable to situational usage?

3. More fundamentally, your choice of 3.0 ypc feels arbitrary. You base it only on your belief that it is a "very easy barometer to hit."

Does that seem right to you? It feels right to me, but the responses have me curious. It also pits 250-1150 as better than 375-1500 (note that the big carry RB had four more TDs (40 adjusted yards) but only 15 more yards of rushing value). That might seem unfair, but consider that we're talking about 350 rushing yards on just 125 carries -- anybody could do that.

Again, this doesn't feel right to me. To me this says you are giving credit for stuff that "anybody" could do but wasn't actually done by the RB being ranked. IMO rankings/comparisons need to be about what actually was done on the field, not what might have been done.

I agree with point #2, but it's basically impossible to deal with that -- at least for now.I don't agree with your other points. Sure, a ball control offense may be great -- but you don't need 1 RB to do that. To me, I don't see a difference between a RB with 370 carries and 1500 rushing yards, or two with 185 carries and 750 rushing yards. Do you?

Even if you don't agree, there has to be some trade-off. So you said 300 carries and 1200 yards is not equivalent to 150 carries and 750 yards. How many rushing yards would the 150 carry guy need to be equivalent to the 300 carry guy, IYO? Would it be 800 yards? 900 yards? At some point it becomes very obvious that the 150 carry guy is more valuable.

 

[Tau837]

How about receiving? The NFL average adjusted net yards per pass play this past season was 5.11. That means on every pass play, if you hit just 5.11 yards, that's average. I don't want to give receiving RBs too much credit, so while I used a really low baseline for RB ypc (3.0), I'll use average here. So RBs only get points for their yards above that number.

I don't understand your logic in choosing 3.0 ypc due to it being a "very easy barometer" but then going with the average of 5.11 adjusted net yards per pass play. I have little faith in this formula if you are applying different criteria in choosing your thresholds.Furthermore, if you're not going to go with the "easy barometer" route, why would you choose an NFL wide average of adjusted net yards per pass play? That includes sacks and pass plays to WRs and TEs, correct? Why not keep the focus on RBs, and determine what the average ypr is for RBs, then determine a threshold based on that?

 

[switz]

Therefore, RB1 in group 2 was the best. He's got 1130 adjusted rushing yards, and 3.0 YPC * 200 carries = 600. Therefore, he's got 530 adjusted rushing yards above 3.0 --> so he has 530 rushing yards of value. RB1 in group 1 is really close, of course. He had 300 carries, which means he gets credit for all adjusted yards over 900. He had 1300 rushing yards and 12 TDs, so that's 1420 yards --> 520 rushing value.Does that seem right to you? It feels right to me, but the responses have me curious.

It seems off to me.... I would never have reached the conclusion you did.

In your book, 200 carries and 1000 rushing yards is equivalent to 300 carries and how many rushing yards?

It's not as simple as you are trying to make it... it's more than just yards and attempts, or yards as you are trying to boil it all down.If a guy carries it 300 times for 1,000 yards, he's probably more valuable to his team than a guy who carries is 200 times for 1,000 yards. Even though the second guy had a higher YPC, he was a smaller percentage of offensive plays. Plus, guys who carry it more usually have a lower YPC, because they carry it in more situations. The higher carry guys are simply more important to their teams, and are usually better all around RBs.I'm more impressed by RB2 from pair 1 than either of pair 2 RBs, and he only rushed for 75 more yards.

 

[Tau837]

(Fumbles are included, but are irrelevant for this exercise.)

Are you deducting 50 yards per fumble lost? That's the value the Hidden Game of Football assigned to it, and it's backed by solid analysis.

 

[switz]

I don't agree with your other points. Sure, a ball control offense may be great -- but you don't need 1 RB to do that. To me, I don't see a difference between a RB with 370 carries and 1500 rushing yards, or two with 185 carries and 750 rushing yards. Do you?

I do... having one guy who CAN do that allows you more flexibility on your roster. Needing two guys to make up that production implies that neither of those two guys are really that good.

 

[Chase Stuart]

How about receiving? The NFL average adjusted net yards per pass play this past season was 5.11. That means on every pass play, if you hit just 5.11 yards, that's average. I don't want to give receiving RBs too much credit, so while I used a really low baseline for RB ypc (3.0), I'll use average here. So RBs only get points for their yards above that number.

I don't understand your logic in choosing 3.0 ypc due to it being a "very easy barometer" but then going with the average of 5.11 adjusted net yards per pass play. I have little faith in this formula if you are applying different criteria in choosing your thresholds.Furthermore, if you're not going to go with the "easy barometer" route, why would you choose an NFL wide average of adjusted net yards per pass play? That includes sacks and pass plays to WRs and TEs, correct? Why not keep the focus on RBs, and determine what the average ypr is for RBs, then determine a threshold based on that?

The average YPR for RBs is something like 8. Therefore, about half of the RBs will have no receiving value. I think a RB with 30 catches for 180 yards brings more value to the table than a RB with 0 catches for 0 yards. Using the RB-wide YPR average would be too high.I think RB rushing and RB receiving do need different thresholds. People don't view them as the same (i.e., a RB with 1500 rushing yards and 100 receiving yards is generally viewed as a better RB -- and perhaps rightly so -- than one with 800/800).

 

[switz]

How about receiving? The NFL average adjusted net yards per pass play this past season was 5.11. That means on every pass play, if you hit just 5.11 yards, that's average. I don't want to give receiving RBs too much credit, so while I used a really low baseline for RB ypc (3.0), I'll use average here. So RBs only get points for their yards above that number.

I don't understand your logic in choosing 3.0 ypc due to it being a "very easy barometer" but then going with the average of 5.11 adjusted net yards per pass play. I have little faith in this formula if you are applying different criteria in choosing your thresholds.Furthermore, if you're not going to go with the "easy barometer" route, why would you choose an NFL wide average of adjusted net yards per pass play? That includes sacks and pass plays to WRs and TEs, correct? Why not keep the focus on RBs, and determine what the average ypr is for RBs, then determine a threshold based on that?

Add in that I've always viewed 4.0 as the threshold for a good RB. At least 3.5.

 

[Chase Stuart]

(Fumbles are included, but are irrelevant for this exercise.)

Are you deducting 50 yards per fumble lost? That's the value the Hidden Game of Football assigned to it, and it's backed by solid analysis.

Essentially, yes. It's a bit more complicated than that, so I'll leave that for a different post.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Therefore, RB1 in group 2 was the best. He's got 1130 adjusted rushing yards, and 3.0 YPC * 200 carries = 600. Therefore, he's got 530 adjusted rushing yards above 3.0 --> so he has 530 rushing yards of value. RB1 in group 1 is really close, of course. He had 300 carries, which means he gets credit for all adjusted yards over 900. He had 1300 rushing yards and 12 TDs, so that's 1420 yards --> 520 rushing value.Does that seem right to you? It feels right to me, but the responses have me curious.

It seems off to me.... I would never have reached the conclusion you did.

In your book, 200 carries and 1000 rushing yards is equivalent to 300 carries and how many rushing yards?

It's not as simple as you are trying to make it... it's more than just yards and attempts, or yards as you are trying to boil it all down.If a guy carries it 300 times for 1,000 yards, he's probably more valuable to his team than a guy who carries is 200 times for 1,000 yards. Even though the second guy had a higher YPC, he was a smaller percentage of offensive plays. Plus, guys who carry it more usually have a lower YPC, because they carry it in more situations. The higher carry guys are simply more important to their teams, and are usually better all around RBs.I'm more impressed by RB2 from pair 1 than either of pair 2 RBs, and he only rushed for 75 more yards.

First, it's simply false to say that RBs who carry it more usually have a lower YPC. I've looked at that extensively, and it's not true, and it makes sense that it's not true.Second, it's pretty ridiculous to conclude that 200 carries for 1,000 yards isn't more valuable than 300 carries for 1,000 yards. Let's say I'm a Jets fan. If you told me I had the choice of Thomas Jones putting up either of those two stat lines, I'd take the 200/1000 by a mile. It's not even close -- every RB carry has some opportunity cost to it. You could give that carry to another RB, who could get 3 or 4 yards. You could pass for 5 or 6 yards. Every play has some value to it. If you give a guy 300 carries and he gets you 600 yards, he's hurting your team. Just because he has 600 yards doesn't mean he's helping your team.A team has about 1,000 plays a year. If you can get 1000 yards on 200 of them by running the ball, that's great. You have 800 other plays to get a bunch of yards. If you get 1000 yards on 300 of them by running the ball, that's not very good at all. You're not getting many first downs, and you're not getting many yards.

 

[Tau837]

I don't agree with your other points. Sure, a ball control offense may be great -- but you don't need 1 RB to do that. To me, I don't see a difference between a RB with 370 carries and 1500 rushing yards, or two with 185 carries and 750 rushing yards. Do you?

Let's use a real example.Would you rather have Tomlinson (315/1474/15) or both Travis Henry (167/691/4) and Chester Taylor (157/844/7) [combined 324/1535/11) on your team last year? Did you take more than one second to decide?ETA: If I understand it correctly, your formula would give the Henry/Taylor combination more rushing value.

 

[Tau837]

How about receiving? The NFL average adjusted net yards per pass play this past season was 5.11. That means on every pass play, if you hit just 5.11 yards, that's average. I don't want to give receiving RBs too much credit, so while I used a really low baseline for RB ypc (3.0), I'll use average here. So RBs only get points for their yards above that number.

I don't understand your logic in choosing 3.0 ypc due to it being a "very easy barometer" but then going with the average of 5.11 adjusted net yards per pass play. I have little faith in this formula if you are applying different criteria in choosing your thresholds.Furthermore, if you're not going to go with the "easy barometer" route, why would you choose an NFL wide average of adjusted net yards per pass play? That includes sacks and pass plays to WRs and TEs, correct? Why not keep the focus on RBs, and determine what the average ypr is for RBs, then determine a threshold based on that?

The average YPR for RBs is something like 8. Therefore, about half of the RBs will have no receiving value. I think a RB with 30 catches for 180 yards brings more value to the table than a RB with 0 catches for 0 yards. Using the RB-wide YPR average would be too high.I think RB rushing and RB receiving do need different thresholds. People don't view them as the same (i.e., a RB with 1500 rushing yards and 100 receiving yards is generally viewed as a better RB -- and perhaps rightly so -- than one with 800/800).

I didn't say to use the average ypr, nor did I say to use the same thresholds for running and receiving. I suggested to (a) be consistent in how you determine the two thresholds and (b) determine the receiving threshold based on the average RB ypr rather than NFL average adjusted net yards per pass play.

 

[AB in DC]

Does that seem right to you? It feels right to me, but the responses have me curious. It also pits 250-1150 as better than 375-1500 (note that the big carry RB had four more TDs (40 adjusted yards) but only 15 more yards of rushing value). That might seem unfair, but consider that we're talking about 350 rushing yards on just 125 carries -- anybody could do that.

No, not anybody who also had another 250 carries that year. It's much harder to have 3.0 YPR on 375 carries than on 125 carries.

 

[switz]

Therefore, RB1 in group 2 was the best. He's got 1130 adjusted rushing yards, and 3.0 YPC * 200 carries = 600. Therefore, he's got 530 adjusted rushing yards above 3.0 --> so he has 530 rushing yards of value. RB1 in group 1 is really close, of course. He had 300 carries, which means he gets credit for all adjusted yards over 900. He had 1300 rushing yards and 12 TDs, so that's 1420 yards --> 520 rushing value.

Does that seem right to you? It feels right to me, but the responses have me curious.

It seems off to me.... I would never have reached the conclusion you did.

In your book, 200 carries and 1000 rushing yards is equivalent to 300 carries and how many rushing yards?

It's not as simple as you are trying to make it... it's more than just yards and attempts, or yards as you are trying to boil it all down.If a guy carries it 300 times for 1,000 yards, he's probably more valuable to his team than a guy who carries is 200 times for 1,000 yards. Even though the second guy had a higher YPC, he was a smaller percentage of offensive plays. Plus, guys who carry it more usually have a lower YPC, because they carry it in more situations. The higher carry guys are simply more important to their teams, and are usually better all around RBs.

I'm more impressed by RB2 from pair 1 than either of pair 2 RBs, and he only rushed for 75 more yards.

First, it's simply false to say that RBs who carry it more usually have a lower YPC. I've looked at that extensively, and it's not true, and it makes sense that it's not true.

Why not share your research, since it's a pretty evident reality, and a basic "truth" to most people.

Second, it's pretty ridiculous to conclude that 200 carries for 1,000 yards isn't more valuable than 300 carries for 1,000 yards. Let's say I'm a Jets fan. If you told me I had the choice of Thomas Jones putting up either of those two stat lines, I'd take the 200/1000 by a mile. It's not even close -- every RB carry has some opportunity cost to it. You could give that carry to another RB, who could get 3 or 4 yards. You could pass for 5 or 6 yards. Every play has some value to it. If you give a guy 300 carries and he gets you 600 yards, he's hurting your team. Just because he has 600 yards doesn't mean he's helping your team.

A team has about 1,000 plays a year. If you can get 1000 yards on 200 of them by running the ball, that's great. You have 800 other plays to get a bunch of yards. If you get 1000 yards on 300 of them by running the ball, that's not very good at all. You're not getting many first downs, and you're not getting many yards.

Not true. You are probably winning games by controlling the clock.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

For each pair of RBs, which season do you think is better?

rsh	ryd	 rtd   ypc	 rec   ryd	 ypr	rtd	RB1	300	1300	12	4.33	20	100	 5.00	1RB2	300	1075	 8	3.58	50	500	10.00	3							RB1	200	1000	13	5.00	40	300	 7.50	1RB2	200	1000	 3	5.00	50	450	 9.00	1									RB1	375	1500	11	4.00	30	275	 9.17	1RB2	315	1320	11	4.19	30	275	 9.17	1							RB1	320	1350	 8	4.22	30	300	10.00	2RB2	250	1150	 7	4.60	60	455	 7.58	2

And, roughly, which three or four RB seasons are best or worst or both?

Without looking at everyone elses responses yet:Group 1 - It's close, by I'll take RB2. I like the overall yardage and the 30 extra receptions even if he's short a couple TD's.Group 2- I like Rb1 a lot more. The 13 TD's make this a no brainer compared to 3, 10 extra receptions doesn't compare.Group 3- Virtually a tie, I'll go with Rb 1 and kudos to anyone who could carry a load of 375 and reaching the 1500 yard mark.Group 4- I like Rb 2 a lot. 70 less carries, only 1 rushing TD less but has 30 more receptions which is huge.

 

[Tau837]

Does that seem right to you? It feels right to me, but the responses have me curious. It also pits 250-1150 as better than 375-1500 (note that the big carry RB had four more TDs (40 adjusted yards) but only 15 more yards of rushing value). That might seem unfair, but consider that we're talking about 350 rushing yards on just 125 carries -- anybody could do that.

No, not anybody who also had another 250 carries that year. It's much harder to have 3.0 YPR on 375 carries than on 125 carries.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't agree with your other points. Sure, a ball control offense may be great -- but you don't need 1 RB to do that. To me, I don't see a difference between a RB with 370 carries and 1500 rushing yards, or two with 185 carries and 750 rushing yards. Do you?

Let's use a real example.Would you rather have Tomlinson (315/1474/15) or both Travis Henry (167/691/4) and Chester Taylor (157/844/7) [combined 314/1535/11) on your team last year? Did you take more than one second to decide?

ETA: If I understand it correctly, your formula would give the Henry/Taylor combination more rushing value.

That's the correct question to ask.My formula would give LT 679 points, Henry 230 points and Taylor 443 points. (It's actually combined 324 carries). Lots of people would assume that Taylor and Henry aren't as good as their numbers, so it might be a bit disingenuous to ask which you'd rather have. On the other hand, if you knew for sure that the RBs would produce those numbers, then yes, I think they're very close to equivalent. For the most part, this formula matches the general perception people have of players. To the extent that it doesn't, it could signal a mistake in the formula, or a mistake in human perception.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Does that seem right to you? It feels right to me, but the responses have me curious. It also pits 250-1150 as better than 375-1500 (note that the big carry RB had four more TDs (40 adjusted yards) but only 15 more yards of rushing value). That might seem unfair, but consider that we're talking about 350 rushing yards on just 125 carries -- anybody could do that.

No, not anybody who also had another 250 carries that year. It's much harder to have 3.0 YPR on 375 carries than on 125 carries.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Therefore, RB1 in group 2 was the best. He's got 1130 adjusted rushing yards, and 3.0 YPC * 200 carries = 600. Therefore, he's got 530 adjusted rushing yards above 3.0 --> so he has 530 rushing yards of value. RB1 in group 1 is really close, of course. He had 300 carries, which means he gets credit for all adjusted yards over 900. He had 1300 rushing yards and 12 TDs, so that's 1420 yards --> 520 rushing value.

Does that seem right to you? It feels right to me, but the responses have me curious.

It seems off to me.... I would never have reached the conclusion you did.

In your book, 200 carries and 1000 rushing yards is equivalent to 300 carries and how many rushing yards?

It's not as simple as you are trying to make it... it's more than just yards and attempts, or yards as you are trying to boil it all down.If a guy carries it 300 times for 1,000 yards, he's probably more valuable to his team than a guy who carries is 200 times for 1,000 yards. Even though the second guy had a higher YPC, he was a smaller percentage of offensive plays. Plus, guys who carry it more usually have a lower YPC, because they carry it in more situations. The higher carry guys are simply more important to their teams, and are usually better all around RBs.

I'm more impressed by RB2 from pair 1 than either of pair 2 RBs, and he only rushed for 75 more yards.

First, it's simply false to say that RBs who carry it more usually have a lower YPC. I've looked at that extensively, and it's not true, and it makes sense that it's not true.

Why not share your research, since it's a pretty evident reality, and a basic "truth" to most people.

Second, it's pretty ridiculous to conclude that 200 carries for 1,000 yards isn't more valuable than 300 carries for 1,000 yards. Let's say I'm a Jets fan. If you told me I had the choice of Thomas Jones putting up either of those two stat lines, I'd take the 200/1000 by a mile. It's not even close -- every RB carry has some opportunity cost to it. You could give that carry to another RB, who could get 3 or 4 yards. You could pass for 5 or 6 yards. Every play has some value to it. If you give a guy 300 carries and he gets you 600 yards, he's hurting your team. Just because he has 600 yards doesn't mean he's helping your team.

A team has about 1,000 plays a year. If you can get 1000 yards on 200 of them by running the ball, that's great. You have 800 other plays to get a bunch of yards. If you get 1000 yards on 300 of them by running the ball, that's not very good at all. You're not getting many first downs, and you're not getting many yards.

Not true. You are probably winning games by controlling the clock.

You're much more likely to win games by controlling the clock if your RB1 has 200 carries for 1000 yards than if your RB1 has 300 carries for 1000 yards.As fas as carries and YPC goes: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=85

 

[switz]

A team has about 1,000 plays a year. If you can get 1000 yards on 200 of them by running the ball, that's great. You have 800 other plays to get a bunch of yards. If you get 1000 yards on 300 of them by running the ball, that's not very good at all. You're not getting many first downs, and you're not getting many yards.

Not true. You are probably winning games by controlling the clock.

You're much more likely to win games by controlling the clock if your RB1 has 200 carries for 1000 yards than if your RB1 has 300 carries for 1000 yards.As fas as carries and YPC goes: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=85

We'll have to disagree on the controlling the clock point. If your 200 carry RB gets a 1,000 yards, he's probably ripping off a couple big plays, maybe even for scores... but he's definitely not controlling the clock. He's giving the other team a chance to get on the field and match the score.You seem to remove situation and system from your system altogether and that's a huge mistake.

As for the YPC... I'll read it. But it will be a challenge to everything I've observed in watching football for years.

ETA - I just saw you wrote the article LOL... nothing like unbiased research. Just go look at the YPC leaders year by year... the vast majority of the time they are low attempt runners. What your article failed to compensate for was the runners who only get attempts on 3rd and short and GL. That will lower the average and give a false result.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Therefore, RB1 in group 2 was the best. He's got 1130 adjusted rushing yards, and 3.0 YPC * 200 carries = 600. Therefore, he's got 530 adjusted rushing yards above 3.0 --> so he has 530 rushing yards of value. RB1 in group 1 is really close, of course. He had 300 carries, which means he gets credit for all adjusted yards over 900. He had 1300 rushing yards and 12 TDs, so that's 1420 yards --> 520 rushing value.

Does that seem right to you? It feels right to me, but the responses have me curious.

It seems off to me.... I would never have reached the conclusion you did.

In your book, 200 carries and 1000 rushing yards is equivalent to 300 carries and how many rushing yards?

It's not as simple as you are trying to make it... it's more than just yards and attempts, or yards as you are trying to boil it all down.If a guy carries it 300 times for 1,000 yards, he's probably more valuable to his team than a guy who carries is 200 times for 1,000 yards. Even though the second guy had a higher YPC, he was a smaller percentage of offensive plays. Plus, guys who carry it more usually have a lower YPC, because they carry it in more situations. The higher carry guys are simply more important to their teams, and are usually better all around RBs.

I'm more impressed by RB2 from pair 1 than either of pair 2 RBs, and he only rushed for 75 more yards.

First, it's simply false to say that RBs who carry it more usually have a lower YPC. I've looked at that extensively, and it's not true, and it makes sense that it's not true.

Why not share your research, since it's a pretty evident reality, and a basic "truth" to most people.

Second, it's pretty ridiculous to conclude that 200 carries for 1,000 yards isn't more valuable than 300 carries for 1,000 yards. Let's say I'm a Jets fan. If you told me I had the choice of Thomas Jones putting up either of those two stat lines, I'd take the 200/1000 by a mile. It's not even close -- every RB carry has some opportunity cost to it. You could give that carry to another RB, who could get 3 or 4 yards. You could pass for 5 or 6 yards. Every play has some value to it. If you give a guy 300 carries and he gets you 600 yards, he's hurting your team. Just because he has 600 yards doesn't mean he's helping your team.

A team has about 1,000 plays a year. If you can get 1000 yards on 200 of them by running the ball, that's great. You have 800 other plays to get a bunch of yards. If you get 1000 yards on 300 of them by running the ball, that's not very good at all. You're not getting many first downs, and you're not getting many yards.

Not true. You are probably winning games by controlling the clock.

Just wanted to say that I agree with Switz (which sometimes is rare ) more than I agree with Chase here.Chase, I admire your commitment to quantification, but this is going down the path of Football Outsiders and Bill James-style Baseball Abstract analysis. Not everything in football can be boiled down to a pure number.

While baseball and football are the top two fantasy sports, they are WAY different. Football is a team game first and foremost, while baseball is the most individualized team sport by far.

(and this is coming from a guy who just used Quality Starts applied to football.... )

 

[Chase Stuart]

To be clear here, my formula is a work in progress. Right now, for 2007 RBs, it's this:

(Rushing Yards + Rushing TDs *10) - Rushes *3 + ((Receiving Yards + 10 * Receiving TDs) / Receptions) - 5.11) * Receptions.

So Adrian Peterson last year -- 238-1341-12, 19-268-1 would become:

747 rushing value, 181 receiving value, 928 total value.

I would welcome any suggestions on a new formula. I can even plug in your formula and give you the list of the top guys very quickly. So throw 'em out here.

 

[Tau837]

I don't agree with your other points. Sure, a ball control offense may be great -- but you don't need 1 RB to do that. To me, I don't see a difference between a RB with 370 carries and 1500 rushing yards, or two with 185 carries and 750 rushing yards. Do you?

Let's use a real example.Would you rather have Tomlinson (315/1474/15) or both Travis Henry (167/691/4) and Chester Taylor (157/844/7) [combined 314/1535/11) on your team last year? Did you take more than one second to decide?

ETA: If I understand it correctly, your formula would give the Henry/Taylor combination more rushing value.

That's the correct question to ask.My formula would give LT 679 points, Henry 230 points and Taylor 443 points. (It's actually combined 324 carries). Lots of people would assume that Taylor and Henry aren't as good as their numbers, so it might be a bit disingenuous to ask which you'd rather have. On the other hand, if you knew for sure that the RBs would produce those numbers, then yes, I think they're very close to equivalent. For the most part, this formula matches the general perception people have of players. To the extent that it doesn't, it could signal a mistake in the formula, or a mistake in human perception.

Or put in Deangelo Williams (144/717/4) instead of Henry. Williams and Taylor combined for 301/1561/11. I'd rather have Tomlinson's performance. And I think that is consistent with human perception, and I don't think human perception is wrong in this case.IMO:

1. It is right to prefer to have one RB who has elite talent (LT in this case) over 2 RBs who have good talent (Williams and Taylor in this case).

2. It is right to prefer a player who has performed at an elite level in the past over other RBs who have performed at a lower level.

3. It is right to prefer to have one player involved in 314 running plays over two players splitting those plays. The former player is good enough to carry that load, whereas the others aren't... IMO this leads to intangibles, like inspiring more confidence in coaches and teammates; drawing more attention from the defense; lower likelihood of one player who is always on the field blowing a critical assignment than one of two players who may have different skills and strengths/weaknesses; etc.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Therefore, RB1 in group 2 was the best. He's got 1130 adjusted rushing yards, and 3.0 YPC * 200 carries = 600. Therefore, he's got 530 adjusted rushing yards above 3.0 --> so he has 530 rushing yards of value. RB1 in group 1 is really close, of course. He had 300 carries, which means he gets credit for all adjusted yards over 900. He had 1300 rushing yards and 12 TDs, so that's 1420 yards --> 520 rushing value.

Does that seem right to you? It feels right to me, but the responses have me curious.

It seems off to me.... I would never have reached the conclusion you did.

In your book, 200 carries and 1000 rushing yards is equivalent to 300 carries and how many rushing yards?

It's not as simple as you are trying to make it... it's more than just yards and attempts, or yards as you are trying to boil it all down.If a guy carries it 300 times for 1,000 yards, he's probably more valuable to his team than a guy who carries is 200 times for 1,000 yards. Even though the second guy had a higher YPC, he was a smaller percentage of offensive plays. Plus, guys who carry it more usually have a lower YPC, because they carry it in more situations. The higher carry guys are simply more important to their teams, and are usually better all around RBs.

I'm more impressed by RB2 from pair 1 than either of pair 2 RBs, and he only rushed for 75 more yards.

First, it's simply false to say that RBs who carry it more usually have a lower YPC. I've looked at that extensively, and it's not true, and it makes sense that it's not true.

Why not share your research, since it's a pretty evident reality, and a basic "truth" to most people.

Second, it's pretty ridiculous to conclude that 200 carries for 1,000 yards isn't more valuable than 300 carries for 1,000 yards. Let's say I'm a Jets fan. If you told me I had the choice of Thomas Jones putting up either of those two stat lines, I'd take the 200/1000 by a mile. It's not even close -- every RB carry has some opportunity cost to it. You could give that carry to another RB, who could get 3 or 4 yards. You could pass for 5 or 6 yards. Every play has some value to it. If you give a guy 300 carries and he gets you 600 yards, he's hurting your team. Just because he has 600 yards doesn't mean he's helping your team.

A team has about 1,000 plays a year. If you can get 1000 yards on 200 of them by running the ball, that's great. You have 800 other plays to get a bunch of yards. If you get 1000 yards on 300 of them by running the ball, that's not very good at all. You're not getting many first downs, and you're not getting many yards.

Not true. You are probably winning games by controlling the clock.

Just wanted to say that I agree with Switz (which sometimes is rare ) more than I agree with Chase here.Chase, I admire your commitment to quantification, but this is going down the path of Football Outsiders and Bill James-style Baseball Abstract analysis. Not everything in football can be boiled down to a pure number.

While baseball and football are the top two fantasy sports, they are WAY different. Football is a team game first and foremost, while baseball is the most individualized team sport by far.

(and this is coming from a guy who just used Quality Starts applied to football.... )

I think that much is obvious. You can't get perfection here. I'm just trying to get more precise than your gut.If I told you these were two RBs:

300-1400-8; 30-200-1

280-1000-7; 30-300-1

Which RB is better? The first one, and it's pretty obvious. But the second RB has more receiving yards, someone could say. But you know, intuitively that 400 more rushing yards is worth more than 100 receiving yards. That means you can weigh the two. I'm trying to get precise weights, so we can answer the difficult questions.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't agree with your other points. Sure, a ball control offense may be great -- but you don't need 1 RB to do that. To me, I don't see a difference between a RB with 370 carries and 1500 rushing yards, or two with 185 carries and 750 rushing yards. Do you?

Let's use a real example.Would you rather have Tomlinson (315/1474/15) or both Travis Henry (167/691/4) and Chester Taylor (157/844/7) [combined 314/1535/11) on your team last year? Did you take more than one second to decide?

ETA: If I understand it correctly, your formula would give the Henry/Taylor combination more rushing value.

That's the correct question to ask.My formula would give LT 679 points, Henry 230 points and Taylor 443 points. (It's actually combined 324 carries). Lots of people would assume that Taylor and Henry aren't as good as their numbers, so it might be a bit disingenuous to ask which you'd rather have. On the other hand, if you knew for sure that the RBs would produce those numbers, then yes, I think they're very close to equivalent. For the most part, this formula matches the general perception people have of players. To the extent that it doesn't, it could signal a mistake in the formula, or a mistake in human perception.

Or put in Deangelo Williams (144/717/4) instead of Henry. Williams and Taylor combined for 301/1561/11. I'd rather have Tomlinson's performance. And I think that is consistent with human perception, and I don't think human perception is wrong in this case.IMO:

1. It is right to prefer to have one RB who has elite talent (LT in this case) over 2 RBs who have good talent (Williams and Taylor in this case).

2. It is right to prefer a player who has performed at an elite level in the past over other RBs who have performed at a lower level.

3. It is right to prefer to have one player involved in 314 running plays over two players splitting those plays. The former player is good enough to carry that load, whereas the others aren't... IMO this leads to intangibles, like inspiring more confidence in coaches and teammates; drawing more attention from the defense; lower likelihood of one player who is always on the field blowing a critical assignment than one of two players who may have different skills and strengths/weaknesses; etc.

That's all fine; but at some point there is a cross-over. I'd love for you to come up with a formula that matches your perception better. It would be interesting to compare the two lists.

 

[switz]

To be clear here, my formula is a work in progress. Right now, for 2007 RBs, it's this:(Rushing Yards + Rushing TDs *10) - Rushes *3 + ((Receiving Yards + 10 * Receiving TDs) / Receptions) - 5.11) * Receptions.So Adrian Peterson last year -- 238-1341-12, 19-268-1 would become:747 rushing value, 181 receiving value, 928 total value.I would welcome any suggestions on a new formula. I can even plug in your formula and give you the list of the top guys very quickly. So throw 'em out here.

(Rushing attempts * 1)+(Rushing Yards)+(Rushing TDs * 14.5)(Passes dropped * -2)+(Receptions * 1)+(Receiving yards)+(Receiving TDs * 14.5)- (Fumbles * 50)or something like that

 

[Chase Stuart]

To be clear here, my formula is a work in progress. Right now, for 2007 RBs, it's this:(Rushing Yards + Rushing TDs *10) - Rushes *3 + ((Receiving Yards + 10 * Receiving TDs) / Receptions) - 5.11) * Receptions.So Adrian Peterson last year -- 238-1341-12, 19-268-1 would become:747 rushing value, 181 receiving value, 928 total value.I would welcome any suggestions on a new formula. I can even plug in your formula and give you the list of the top guys very quickly. So throw 'em out here.

(Rushing attempts * 1)+(Rushing Yards)+(Rushing TDs * 14.5)(Passes dropped * -2)+(Receptions * 1)+(Receiving yards)+(Receiving TDs * 14.5)- (Fumbles * 50)or something like that

Here are the top 25 guys off of that. First column = rushing score; second column = receiving score; third column = total.

1713	934	2646	Brian Westbrook2007	579	2585	LaDainian Tomlinson1747	436	2183	Clinton Portis1753	302	2055	Adrian L. Peterson1733	307	2040	Jamal Lewis1507	449	1956	Joseph Addai1435	504	1938	Frank Gore1603	289	1891	Willis McGahee1648	228	1876	Edgerrin James1666	187	1853	Willie Parker1444	260	1703	Thomas Jones1497	202	1699	Marshawn Lynch1324	355	1679	Marion Barber1515	134	1649	LenDale White1265	373	1638	Earnest Graham1312	324	1635	Steven Jackson1498	 67	1565	Fred Taylor1066	447	1513	Maurice Jones-Drew1269	226	1495	Brandon Jacobs1043	426	1469	Kenny Watson1260	175	1435	Ryan Grant1103	310	1413	Chester Taylor1167	222	1388	DeShaun Foster 796	519	1315	Reggie Bush1005	275	1280	Warrick Dunn

 

[Chase Stuart]

Here's my top 25 RBs from last year, using this formula (and once again, for now, excluding fumbles):

679	198	877	LaDainian Tomlinson409	184	593	Joseph Addai533	 12	545	Fred Taylor420	115	535	Jamal Lewis307	203	510	Maurice Jones-Drew285	200	485	Ronnie Brown340	 96	436	Laurence Maroney284	108	392	Kenny Watson295	 92	387	Marshawn Lynch289	 52	341	Selvin Young293	 46	339	Willie Parker315	 21	336	Willis McGahee223	112	335	Najeh Davenport189	 84	273	Thomas Jones246	 25	271	Ron Dayne167	104	271	LaMont Jordan166	 78	244	Fred Jackson181	 31	212	Chris Brown 54	153	207	Kevin Faulk175	 29	204	Travis Henry175	 21	196	Kenton Keith 82	110	192	Jason Wright119	 59	178	Andre Hall159	  4	163	Sammy Morris146	 12	158	LenDale White

"this" formula - refer to the one I quickly threw out, or the one you created?

Actually, it had a bug. Disregard this for now.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Here's the top 25 with my system:

707	181	888	Adrian Peterson519	361	880	Brian Westbrook679	198	877	LaDainian Tomlinson409	184	593	Joseph Addai533	 12	545	Fred Taylor420	115	535	Jamal Lewis307	203	510	Maurice Jones-Drew428	 77	505	Marion Barber285	200	485	Ronnie Brown292	175	467	Frank Gore467	- 8	459	Ryan Grant318	133	451	Chester Taylor314	134	448	Jerious Norwood340	 96	436	Laurence Maroney267	149	416	Clinton Portis318	 76	394	Brandon Jacobs284	108	392	Kenny Watson295	 92	387	Marshawn Lynch307	 74	381	Earnest Graham300	 67	367	DeAngelo Williams256	 87	343	Steven Jackson289	 52	341	Selvin Young293	 46	339	Willie Parker315	 21	336	Willis McGahee223	112	335	Najeh Davenport223	105	328	Maurice Morris215	 81	296	Edgerrin James189	 84	273	Thomas Jones246	 25	271	Ron Dayne

 

[switz]

To be clear here, my formula is a work in progress. Right now, for 2007 RBs, it's this:(Rushing Yards + Rushing TDs *10) - Rushes *3 + ((Receiving Yards + 10 * Receiving TDs) / Receptions) - 5.11) * Receptions.So Adrian Peterson last year -- 238-1341-12, 19-268-1 would become:747 rushing value, 181 receiving value, 928 total value.I would welcome any suggestions on a new formula. I can even plug in your formula and give you the list of the top guys very quickly. So throw 'em out here.

(Rushing attempts * 1)+(Rushing Yards)+(Rushing TDs * 14.5)(Passes dropped * -2)+(Receptions * 1)+(Receiving yards)+(Receiving TDs * 14.5)- (Fumbles * 50)or something like that

Here are the top 25 guys off of that. First column = rushing score; second column = receiving score; third column = total.

1713	934	2646	Brian Westbrook2007	579	2585	LaDainian Tomlinson1747	436	2183	Clinton Portis1753	302	2055	Adrian L. Peterson1733	307	2040	Jamal Lewis1507	449	1956	Joseph Addai1435	504	1938	Frank Gore1603	289	1891	Willis McGahee1648	228	1876	Edgerrin James1666	187	1853	Willie Parker1444	260	1703	Thomas Jones1497	202	1699	Marshawn Lynch1324	355	1679	Marion Barber1515	134	1649	LenDale White1265	373	1638	Earnest Graham1312	324	1635	Steven Jackson1498	 67	1565	Fred Taylor1066	447	1513	Maurice Jones-Drew1269	226	1495	Brandon Jacobs1043	426	1469	Kenny Watson1260	175	1435	Ryan Grant1103	310	1413	Chester Taylor1167	222	1388	DeShaun Foster 796	519	1315	Reggie Bush1005	275	1280	Warrick Dunn

Not too bad... not too bad at all. I'd probably weight attempts a little less, though I still feel they are important. And try to include games played to some degree.

 

[DawnBTVS]

Going off of Switz's formula...

(GP*1) + (Rushing Attempts * 0.70) + (Rushing Yards) + (Rushing TD * 14.5)

(Dropped Passes * -1) + (Receptions * 1.3) + (Receiving Yards) + (Receiving TD * 14.5)

(Fumbles Lost * -50)

My argument: Given the rise of running back by committee, one could make the argument that carries are worth less overall but a reception is worth more overall (See Brian Westbrook) given the ability for a higher yard per catch (vs. yard per carry). It would be reasonable that a running back who catches the ball and averages 8 yards per catch would have similar value to a guy who carries the ball and averages 4 yards a carry (Assuming total touches are similar).

Just trying to figure out a way to better compare (balance?) the value of somebody like a Brian Westbrook who may not get as many carries as a Jamal Lewis/Thomas Jones but is a better threat catching the ball. Does that value make Brian more ideal despite the lack of carries or do carries still mean more regardless of receptions?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Going off of Switz's formula...(GP*1) + (Rushing Attempts * 0.70) + (Rushing Yards) + (Rushing TD * 14.5)(Dropped Passes * -1) + (Receptions * 1.3) + (Receiving Yards) + (Receiving TD * 14.5)(Fumbles Lost * -50)My argument: Given the rise of running back by committee, one could make the argument that carries are worth less overall but a reception is worth more overall (See Brian Westbrook) given the ability for a higher yard per catch (vs. yard per carry). It would be reasonable that a running back who catches the ball and averages 8 yards per catch would have similar value to a guy who carries the ball and averages 4 yards a carry (Assuming total touches are similar).Just trying to figure out a way to better compare (balance?) the value of somebody like a Brian Westbrook who may not get as many carries as a Jamal Lewis/Thomas Jones but is a better threat catching the ball. Does that value make Brian more ideal despite the lack of carries or do carries still mean more regardless of receptions?

A couple notes:1) I don't have dropped passes data, so I didn't put that in your formula or switz' formula.2) I continue to disagree with both of you that more RB carries are a good thing without more yards. By giving a bonus for rushing attempts instead of dividing yards by rushing attempts, I think we're going the wrong way here. That said, here's your list:

1644	961	2605	Brian Westbrook1928	597	2525	LaDainian Tomlinson1665	450	2115	Clinton Portis1696	307	2003	Adrian L. Peterson1658	316	1974	Jamal Lewis1444	461	1905	Joseph Addai1372	519	1891	Frank Gore1529	301	1831	Willis McGahee1566	235	1802	Edgerrin James1585	194	1779	Willie Parker1279	368	1647	Marion Barber1367	268	1634	Thomas Jones1426	207	1633	Marshawn Lynch1213	388	1601	Earnest Graham1252	335	1587	Steven Jackson1440	140	1580	LenDale White1446	 70	1515	Fred Taylor1030	459	1489	Maurice Jones-Drew1219	233	1452	Brandon Jacobs1005	442	1447	Kenny Watson1219	184	1403	Ryan Grant1069	319	1388	Chester Taylor1108	229	1337	DeShaun Foster 761	541	1302	Reggie Bush 953	286	1239	Warrick Dunn

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I think that much is obvious. You can't get perfection here. I'm just trying to get more precise than your gut.If I told you these were two RBs:300-1400-8; 30-200-1280-1000-7; 30-300-1Which RB is better? The first one, and it's pretty obvious. But the second RB has more receiving yards, someone could say. But you know, intuitively that 400 more rushing yards is worth more than 100 receiving yards. That means you can weigh the two. I'm trying to get precise weights, so we can answer the difficult questions.

Since you're a lawyer, you should appreciate this.I'll answer your question with a question - What defines better?More yards?More plays?More value to his team?More fantasy points?None of these necessarily equate, so you'll have to define "better".

 

[switz]

1) I don't have dropped passes data, so I didn't put that in your formula or switz' formula.2) I continue to disagree with both of you that more RB carries are a good thing without more yards. By giving a bonus for rushing attempts instead of dividing yards by rushing attempts, I think we're going the wrong way here. That said, here's your list:

Then why do our formula's create a list more in line with what people view as the better RBs?

 

[Chase Stuart]

1) I don't have dropped passes data, so I didn't put that in your formula or switz' formula.2) I continue to disagree with both of you that more RB carries are a good thing without more yards. By giving a bonus for rushing attempts instead of dividing yards by rushing attempts, I think we're going the wrong way here. That said, here's your list:

Then why do our formula's create a list more in line with what people view as the better RBs?

I'm not sure yours does. I'm not saying mine is right or yours is right -- I think it's an interesting questions.Points in favor of my list:Marion Barber is ranked ahead of Thomas Jones.ADP is #1.Ryan Grant and MJD are ahead of Kenny Watson.Fred Taylor is ahead of Earnest Graham.Points in favor of your list:Clinton Portis ahead of Chestor Taylor.Edgerrin James is ahead of Najeh DavenportSteven Jackson ahead of DeAngelo Williams.Jerrious Norwood ranking high.

 

[switz]

1) I don't have dropped passes data, so I didn't put that in your formula or switz' formula.2) I continue to disagree with both of you that more RB carries are a good thing without more yards. By giving a bonus for rushing attempts instead of dividing yards by rushing attempts, I think we're going the wrong way here. That said, here's your list:

Then why do our formula's create a list more in line with what people view as the better RBs?

I'm not sure yours does. I'm not saying mine is right or yours is right -- I think it's an interesting questions.

Hmmm... I'm not saying either of ours are right... but

Points in favor of my list:Marion Barber is ranked ahead of Thomas Jones.

I don't think that's right though. Jones is a better back than Barber IMO, who has been stuck on some dreadful teams his entire career.

ADP is #1.

I think that's flawed as well, as LT and Westbrook are better backs. ADP split time last season.

Ryan Grant and MJD are ahead of Kenny Watson.

Well, I agree something is messed up when Kenny Watson ends up in the top-25, though of note he ranks higher in your system than mine.

Fred Taylor is ahead of Earnest Graham.

Yeah... he probably should be

Points in favor of your list:Clinton Portis ahead of Chestor Taylor.Edgerrin James is ahead of Najeh DavenportSteven Jackson ahead of DeAngelo Williams.Jerrious Norwood ranking high.

Taylor and MJD #6 & #8 in yours? (17 & 18 on mine)Chester Taylor #13? (22 on mine)Davenport #21? (not in my top-25)Portis so low on yours?I don't think my formula is "it", but I do think it illustrates that attempts matter.I think I'll set up and excel sheet and play with this a bit.