How I rank RB's (1 Viewer)

[TheLem]

I'd like to hear/see what you use when sifting through RB's.

I'm in a PPR league plus 1 pt for every 5 yrds rushing and 1 pt every 10 yds passing. (however this works on any scale).

I use beta 1.0 as the number of points earned just simply from rushing yards.

for instance, if you are in a league where you get 1 pt for every 10 yards rushing and your RB rushed for 100 yards, your back would get 10 pts.

however, if you get 6 pts for TD's and he gets 1 pt for every 10 yards recieving...you could have the following stat line:

100 yards rushing, 40 yards recieving and 2 TD's. That equals 26 pts (10 for rush yards, 4 for rec. yards and 12 pts for TDs).

So he has 26 pts on 10 pts rushing...thus a beta of 2.6.

I love to find backs who have a high beta factor (LT, Alexander, LJ, obviously)...but this beta factor helps show me which backs have an easier time reaching a 20pt game vs those who mainly have to have a high rushing output to do so.

I've done this for the past several years...in fact, during the 2004 season B. Westbrook acually had the highest beta that i've seen (around a 2.8 in our scoring system)...this meant that he got 2.8 fantasy points for every 1 pt he earned from his rushing stats. Amazing.

 

[BroadwayG]

Mike Sellers at 1.01 this year!

 

[redman]

Mike Sellers at 1.01 this year!

Doubt he'll repeat it, but

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

I've done this for the past several years...

interesting idea. Post the numbers, if you don't mind.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

This is an interesting concept in your baseline - but I think you might be diminishing the value of FWP, Droughns, or Warrick Dunn for example.

If your goal here is to find "home run hitters", then I can see why you'd do this. But all you're really doing here is promoting RBs that are pass catchers and, to a lesser degree, TD scorers. No question that they are valuable things, but I don't know if they factor in that dramatically across the board.

Here's what I get from last season:

# - Running Back - Team - Rush Pts - Fantasy Pts - Beta--- --------------------- --- 95 Edwards,Marc CHI 0 28.6 #DIV/0!97 Shelton,Daimon BUF 0 28.8 #DIV/0!103 Fleming,Troy TEN 0 22.9 #DIV/0!110 Cook,Jameel TB 0 17.3 #DIV/0!114 Finn,James NYG 0 22.8 #DIV/0!117 Parry,Josh PHI 0 21.9 #DIV/0!120 Burns,Joe BUF 0 8.9 #DIV/0!127 Hedgecock,Madison STL 0 15.9 #DIV/0!130 Norris,Moran HOU 0 7.4 #DIV/0!142 Bush,Steve SF 0 5.1 #DIV/0!145 Leach,Vonta GB 0 6.9 #DIV/0!147 Williams,Walter --- 0 2.9 #DIV/0!148 Ricard,Alan BAL 0 3.8 #DIV/0!151 Cruz,Ronnie KC 0 2.5 #DIV/0!152 Mughelli,Ovie BAL 0 4.3 #DIV/0!153 McCrary,Fred ATL 0 4.2 #DIV/0!154 Beasley,Fred SF 0 3.2 #DIV/0!157 Smith,Musa BAL 0 3.5 #DIV/0!159 Baxter,Jarrod --- 0 1.4 #DIV/0!58 Sellers,Mike WAS 0.2 67.2 337.00078 Sowell,Jerald NYJ 0.2 61.5 308.500116 Schlesinger,Cory DET 0.2 17.1 86.50061 Johnson,Kyle DEN 1.8 69 39.333100 Polite,Lousaka DAL 1.6 22.2 14.875104 Smith,Terrelle CLE 1.8 23.8 14.22288 Johnson,Jeremi CIN 2.8 36.5 14.036140 Green,Justin BAL 0.8 10.2 13.750141 Hetherington,Chris SF 0.6 7.6 13.667121 Jackson,Terry SF 2.2 16.7 8.591123 Karney,Mike NO 2.4 16.1 7.708144 Johnson,Bryan CHI 1 6.5 7.50085 Ayanbadejo,Obafemi ARI 9.2 57.1 7.207113 Wimbush,Derrick JAX 2.4 13.6 6.66746 Alstott,Mike TB 16 89.2 6.57599 Richardson,Tony KC 4 21.8 6.450106 Hoover,Brad CAR 4.4 22.7 6.15975 Griffith,Justin ATL 13 50.1 4.854128 Smith,Paul DET 3.2 10.9 4.406124 Williams,Moe MIN 4 13.2 4.300105 Harris,Arlen STL 4.2 13.4 4.190136 Suggs,Lee CLE 3 8.6 3.86751 Fisher,Tony GB 34.6 94.7 3.737109 Brown,Dee --- 4.2 11.3 3.690129 Kreider,Dan PIT 4.2 11.3 3.69090 Strong,Mack SEA 15.6 38.6 3.474135 Jackson,James ARI 2.2 5.1 3.31881 Neal,Lorenzo SD 19.2 44.5 3.318118 Carthon,Ran IND 3.6 8 3.22262 Jacobs,Brandon NYG 19.8 42 3.12167 Pearman,Alvin JAX 29.8 62 3.081111 Wright,Jason --- 5.4 10.5 2.94468 Rhodes,Dominic IND 23.6 45.8 2.94180 Fason,Ciatrick MIN 12.4 24 2.935134 Mungro,James IND 3 5.8 2.93369 Faulk,Kevin NE 28.8 55 2.91045 Perry,Chris CIN 55.8 95.8 2.71796 Morris,Sammy MIA 11.6 19.4 2.67253 Faulk,Marshall STL 58.4 79.1 2.35418 Westbrook,Brian PHI 122.8 164.6 2.34049 Pass,Patrick NE 49 62.7 2.280138 McKie,Jason CHI 4.4 5.5 2.25050 Bryson,Shawn DET 61.2 71.4 2.16783 Goings,Nick CAR 26.6 29.1 2.09498 Mahe,Reno PHI 17.4 18.8 2.08071 Toefield,Labrandon JAX 28.4 28.7 2.01189 Payton,Jarrett --- 21 21 2.00044 Wells,Jonathan HOU 65 63.9 1.9838 Jordan,Lamont OAK 205 192.3 1.93832 Holmes,Priest KC 90.2 82.7 1.91742 Pittman,Michael TB 87.2 78 1.89484 Williams,Shaud BUF 32.2 28.8 1.894137 Sapp,Cecil DEN 4.2 3.7 1.88152 Stecker,Aaron NO 72.6 63.1 1.86936 Bettis,Jerome PIT 73.6 62 1.84273 Morency,Vernand HOU 36.8 30.7 1.83447 Pinner,Artose DET 69.8 57.1 1.81816 Dillon,Corey NE 146.6 118.1 1.80638 Duckett,T.J. ATL 76 60.3 1.79343 Taylor,Chester BAL 97.4 76.2 1.78226 Davis,Stephen CAR 109.2 81.5 1.74656 Haynes,Verron PIT 54.8 40.3 1.73539 Bennett,Michael MIN 94.6 69.4 1.734112 Robertson,Jamal CAR 8.2 6 1.73274 Crockett,Zack OAK 41.6 30.1 1.7243 Tomlinson,Ladainian SD 292.8 208 1.71054 McAllister,Deuce NO 67 46.7 1.69755 Arrington,J.J. ARI 74 50.9 1.688133 Nash,Damien TEN 6.4 4.4 1.68879 Gordon,Lamar PHI 36.4 24.9 1.68493 Davenport,Najeh GB 21 14.3 1.68128 Moore,Mewelde MIN 132.4 88.9 1.67148 Shipp,Marcel ARI 90.2 60.5 1.67170 Green,Ahman GB 51 33.7 1.66111 Jackson,Steven STL 209.2 135 1.64582 Evans,Heath MIA 38.4 24.5 1.63834 Barlow,Kevan SF 115.2 73.1 1.635102 Cason,Aveion STL 13 8.1 1.62320 Brown,Chris TEN 170.2 99.7 1.58610 Anderson,Mike DEN 202.8 117.2 1.57860 Hicks,Maurice SF 61.6 34.7 1.56317 Davis,Domanick HOU 195.2 108.7 1.55735 Barber,Marion DAL 107.6 59.5 1.5532 Johnson,Larry KC 350 193.3 1.5525 James,Edgerrin IND 301.2 161.7 1.537146 Zereoue,Amos --- 2.8 1.5 1.53692 Staley,Duce PIT 29.6 15.4 1.52030 Gado,Samkon --- 116.4 59.7 1.513107 Green,William CLE 15.6 8 1.5131 Alexander,Shaun SEA 376 190.8 1.50724 Foster,De'shaun CAR 176.4 89.2 1.50691 Herron,Noah PIT 24.6 12 1.48823 Brown,Ronnie MIA 181.4 85.2 1.470143 Lee,Reshard --- 3.2 1.5 1.4694 Barber,Tiki NYG 372 173 1.46531 Jones,Kevin DET 132.8 60.9 1.45929 Martin,Curtis NYJ 147 65.8 1.448126 Blaylock,Derrick NYJ 10.6 4.7 1.44359 Betts,Ladell WAS 67.6 29.8 1.44164 Houston,Cedric NYJ 60.4 26.6 1.44021 Jones,Julius DAL 198.6 86.8 1.43727 Williams,Ricky MIA 148.6 62.3 1.41922 Bell,Tatum DEN 184.2 76.4 1.41525 Lewis,Jamal BAL 181.2 75.1 1.41477 Cartwright,Rock WAS 39.8 16.3 1.41065 Moats,Ryan PHI 55.6 22.7 1.408131 Sproles,Darren SD 10 4 1.4006 Portis,Clinton WAS 303.2 117.6 1.38837 Gore,Frank SF 122.6 46.1 1.37666 Henry,Travis TEN 67 24.7 1.36914 Droughns,Reuben CLE 246.4 87.9 1.3577 Johnson,Rudi CIN 291.6 104 1.3579 Jones,Thomas CHI 267 94.3 1.35341 Jones,Greg JAX 115 40.5 1.352139 Fargas,Justin OAK 5.6 1.9 1.33957 Peterson,Adrian CHI 78.2 23.8 1.30413 McGahee,Willis BUF 249.4 75.8 1.304150 Minor,Travis MIA 3.4 1 1.29415 Parker,Willie PIT 240.4 69.8 1.290108 Thomas,Anthony DAL 18.4 5.3 1.28872 Morris,Maurice SEA 57.6 15.8 1.27419 Williams,Carnell TB 235.6 64.1 1.27263 Turner,Michael SD 67 18 1.26912 Dunn,Warrick ATL 283.2 75 1.26540 Smith,Antowain NO 131.8 34.6 1.26333 Taylor,Fred JAX 157.4 39.3 1.25076 Dayne,Ron DEN 54 10.7 1.198125 Askew,B.J. NYJ 11.8 2.1 1.178115 Weaver,Leonard SEA 16 2.2 1.138101 Ward,Derrick NYG 24.6 3.3 1.13494 Thompson,Tyson DAL 36.4 4.6 1.12686 Benson,Cedric CHI 54.4 1.3 1.024119 Graham,Earnest TB 16.6 0 1.000122 Perry,Bruce --- 14.8 0 1.000132 Cloud,Mike --- 11.8 0 1.000149 White,Jamel --- 3.4 0 1.000155 Anderson,Damien --- 1.4 0 1.000156 Smart,Rod CAR 1.2 0 1.000158 Pinnock,Andrew SD 0.8 0 1.000160 Broughton,Nehemiah WAS 0.6 0 1.00087 Henderson,William GB -1 56.4 -55.400Slimming it down to the Top 50 RBs from last year:

# - Running Back - Team - Rush Pts - Fantasy Pts - Beta

--- --------------------- ---

46 Alstott,Mike TB 16 89.2 6.575

45 Perry,Chris CIN 55.8 95.8 2.717

18 Westbrook,Brian PHI 122.8 164.6 2.340

49 Pass,Patrick NE 49 62.7 2.280

50 Bryson,Shawn DET 61.2 71.4 2.167

44 Wells,Jonathan HOU 65 63.9 1.983

8 Jordan,Lamont OAK 205 192.3 1.938

32 Holmes,Priest KC 90.2 82.7 1.917

42 Pittman,Michael TB 87.2 78 1.894

36 Bettis,Jerome PIT 73.6 62 1.842

47 Pinner,Artose DET 69.8 57.1 1.818

16 Dillon,Corey NE 146.6 118.1 1.806

38 Duckett,T.J. ATL 76 60.3 1.793

43 Taylor,Chester BAL 97.4 76.2 1.782

26 Davis,Stephen CAR 109.2 81.5 1.746

39 Bennett,Michael MIN 94.6 69.4 1.734

3 Tomlinson,Ladainian SD 292.8 208 1.710

28 Moore,Mewelde MIN 132.4 88.9 1.671

48 Shipp,Marcel ARI 90.2 60.5 1.671

11 Jackson,Steven STL 209.2 135 1.645

34 Barlow,Kevan SF 115.2 73.1 1.635

20 Brown,Chris TEN 170.2 99.7 1.586

10 Anderson,Mike DEN 202.8 117.2 1.578

17 Davis,Domanick HOU 195.2 108.7 1.557

35 Barber,Marion DAL 107.6 59.5 1.553

2 Johnson,Larry KC 350 193.3 1.552

5 James,Edgerrin IND 301.2 161.7 1.537

30 Gado,Samkon --- 116.4 59.7 1.513

1 Alexander,Shaun SEA 376 190.8 1.507

24 Foster,De'shaun CAR 176.4 89.2 1.506

23 Brown,Ronnie MIA 181.4 85.2 1.470

4 Barber,Tiki NYG 372 173 1.465

31 Jones,Kevin DET 132.8 60.9 1.459

29 Martin,Curtis NYJ 147 65.8 1.448

21 Jones,Julius DAL 198.6 86.8 1.437

27 Williams,Ricky MIA 148.6 62.3 1.419

22 Bell,Tatum DEN 184.2 76.4 1.415

25 Lewis,Jamal BAL 181.2 75.1 1.414

6 Portis,Clinton WAS 303.2 117.6 1.388

37 Gore,Frank SF 122.6 46.1 1.376

14 Droughns,Reuben CLE 246.4 87.9 1.357

7 Johnson,Rudi CIN 291.6 104 1.357

9 Jones,Thomas CHI 267 94.3 1.353

41 Jones,Greg JAX 115 40.5 1.352

13 McGahee,Willis BUF 249.4 75.8 1.304

15 Parker,Willie PIT 240.4 69.8 1.290

19 Williams,Carnell TB 235.6 64.1 1.272

12 Dunn,Warrick ATL 283.2 75 1.265

40 Smith,Antowain NO 131.8 34.6 1.263

33 Taylor,Fred JAX 157.4 39.3 1.250

Looks like my guess on FWP, Dunn and Droughns was pretty accurate.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I think your general idea is the exact opposite of what I think of RBs generally.

Give me a guy who can consistently eat up yardage game in and game out and I'll be happy. I'd rather have him then that RB who makes you think "boy I sure hope he gets a TD this game or I'm screwed".

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I think your general idea is the exact opposite of what I think of RBs generally.

Give me a guy who can consistently eat up yardage game in and game out and I'll be happy. I'd rather have him then that RB who makes you think "boy I sure hope he gets a TD this game or I'm screwed".

This is correct - but come playoff time or on the waiver wire, if you want a guy with "big upside" that might be below the radar, a high beta (akin to high risk stocks) might be the way to go.Alternative thinking -

 

[TheLem]

I always called this the "Jerome Bettis" test.

In our league...if JB didn't get a TD or two you were screwed...because his points came mostly from yardage.

I don't want guys like that.

I want guys like Edgerrin from 99 or Tiki from last year.

Yeah...they might rush for 60 yards...but they still get you those 20-30 point games because of receptions, rec yards, and TD's.

that is what i'm getting at through this beta thing...

the beta will differ according to your league rules...because we offer 1 pt per 5 yards rushing...so mike alstott's beta is alot lower in our league than in most others.

I'm telling you, i do this ranking on the top 20-30 RB's each year...it gives me a good perspective on who relies on big yardage games for most of their points or who can still get me the points even when the yards are hard to come by.

 

[TheLem]

I will post my numbers as soon as i get to my office on Monday and pull them from my laptop.

I'll try to do some of the numbers from last year this weekend...it isn't hard..it is relatively easy.

again...the beta will rely upon your league's scoring system.

but give me a back any day who is the starter with a beta of 2.0 and rushes for an average of 65 yards a game over a 100 yard rusher any day who isn't a reciever out of the backfield..because in our league..they'll out perform them 80% of the time.

 

[redman]

Why not call this the goalline or red zone index? That gets to the heart of the matter, doesn't it? Guys who have lots of yardage but who don't get goalline carries (or for whatever reason just don't score a lot of TD's) will rank worse than those that do.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Why not call this the goalline or red zone index? That gets to the heart of the matter, doesn't it? Guys who have lots of yardage but who don't get goalline carries (or for whatever reason just don't score a lot of TD's) will rank worse than those that do.

The beta system sounds way cooler.

 

[redman]

Why not call this the goalline or red zone index?  That gets to the heart of the matter, doesn't it?  Guys who have lots of yardage but who don't get goalline carries (or for whatever reason just don't score a lot of TD's) will rank worse than those that do.

The beta system sounds way cooler.

How about Leroy Hoard's Beta System? Hmmmm? Hmmmm?

 

[radballs]

I'd much rather have lower Beta guys as TDs can be somewhat unpredictable except for the tier one guys.

 

[TheLem]

Fellas,

This isn't about 'RED ZONE GUYS'.

Did any of you guys play fantasy football in 1999?

Remember when Edgerrin James would only have 60 yards rushing but still have 20 freakin' points?

That's because his beta was superior.

Yeah..you can find guys with high beta (like Tommy Vardell in the early 90's)...but i'm talking about using beta to distinguish between STARTERS that carry the load.

I use a baseline like the 20th best fantasy pt rb or so...then see which of those guys depend less on yards rushing to get their points...or in other words, which guys CONSISTENTLY score without have to have 144 yards rushing to do so.

it's just a way to see how many points a RB gets from non-rushing yards (ie, ppr, rec yards, TD's and special teams yards) vs his rushing yards only.

Don't use it if you don't like it, obviously...but i tell ya...if you are in a PPR league...it works wonders.

 

[radballs]

Do you rank your top 20 strictly by this beta figure and then just draft accordingly? Why are you not pulling out receiving yardage? How is this different from rushing yardage when it's scored the same?

 

[TheLem]

What I'm looking for is multi-purpose backs.

What separates LT and LJ from guys like Jamal Lewis is that Jamal Lewis almost has to rush for 100 yards+ to have a big game...while guys like LJ and LT, because they score alot of points in other areas besides rushing yards, don't have to rush for 100 to have a big game.

If the ravens fall behind by 21...you're screwed if you own Lewis.

If the chargers or chiefs fall behind by 21...LT and LJ will still rack up the points due to receptions, recieving yards, etc.

This higher beta figure tells me how these guys score in relation to each other in regards to the fantasy points scored vs the fantasy points that comes from rushing.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

What I'm looking for is multi-purpose backs.What separates LT and LJ from guys like Jamal Lewis is that Jamal Lewis almost has to rush for 100 yards+ to have a big game

Isn't that pretty much understood without having to come up with a "beta system"?

 

[Footballhead]

Lets not re-invent the wheel....there's nothing that says a RB should only be gauged by how much he runs, or QB by how much he passes. There are good players and then there are good fantasy players, that's all we need to know.

 

[videoguy505]

Slimming down further to the Top 20 RBs from last year: # - Running Back - Team - Rush Pts - Fantasy Pts - Beta--- --------------------- ---   18 Westbrook,Brian PHI 122.8 164.6 2.3408 Jordan,Lamont OAK 205 192.3 1.93816 Dillon,Corey NE 146.6 118.1 1.8063 Tomlinson,Ladainian SD 292.8 208 1.71011 Jackson,Steven STL 209.2 135 1.64520 Brown,Chris TEN 170.2 99.7 1.58610 Anderson,Mike DEN 202.8 117.2 1.57817 Davis,Domanick HOU 195.2 108.7 1.5572 Johnson,Larry KC 350 193.3 1.5525 James,Edgerrin IND 301.2 161.7 1.5371 Alexander,Shaun SEA 376 190.8 1.5074 Barber,TikiNYG 372 173 1.4656 Portis,Clinton WAS 303.2 117.6 1.38814 Droughns,Reuben CLE 246.4 87.9 1.3577 Johnson,Rudi CIN 291.6 104 1.3579 Jones,Thomas CHI 267 94.3 1.35313 McGahee,Willis BUF 249.4 75.8 1.30415 Parker,Willie PIT 240.4 69.8 1.29019 Williams,Carnell TB 235.6 64.1 1.27212 Dunn,Warrick ATL 283.2 75 1.265I'm still not sure what I'm looking at. Sorry Lem. Should I be ranking Steven Jackson as more efficient than Larry Johnson? Is that true in a PPR league? Was Westbrook RB1 in PPRs last year? He's dominant in his own tier in beta number. Lamont Jordan is ranked above LT by as much as LT is ranked above LJ as LJ is ranked about Portis and Rudi, is there an equivalence here in the beta number that can be carried across like that? Isn't the fact that Westbrook rates so high is because he seemed to rush for 50 yards and then receive for 50 yards last year? Is that of any value? He never seemed to be relied on have a big game.

Did any of you guys play fantasy football in 1999?

Yeah, I did. Not a PPR, but yes. But my RBs get points for rushing and receiving yards anyway. So I factor that in to my predraft ranking. My QBs also get points for rushing yards and rushing TDs, so I value Vick and McNabb a little higher than just off passing yards. The ranking here seems to be all over the place, guys 70 FPs below the guy below them are ranked higher. Larry Johnson, Edge, and Dominck Davis are equivalent, even though LJ scored 90 more FPs over the season than DD. I just don't understand how I'm supposed to read this to find value.

 

[redman]

I think your general idea is the exact opposite of what I think of RBs generally.

Give me a guy who can consistently eat up yardage game in and game out and I'll be happy.  I'd rather have him then that RB who makes you think "boy I sure hope he gets a TD this game or I'm screwed".

I agree and I've always thought this way. The guys who gain a lot of yardage AND who rank highly on this scale are the all time great fantasy players, e.g. mid-90's Emmit Smith, '99-'01 Marshall Faulk, '02-'03 Priest Holmes. It's an interesting index for you to determine how someone gets their points (not that that's a real mystery after looking at their stat lines), but what conclusions you draw from it are your own.

 

[TheLem]

About the Beta system I use:

It would appear obvious that LT and LJ are better RB's to have than say Steven Jackson and Rudi Johnson. That isn't necessarily why I use this.

In our league, a good RB game is 35 pts and above. The record is 78 by priest and LT in 2003.

Our league rewards RB's who do the extras...not just rush the ball. So that is why I mentioned that Beta figures may/will be different in your scoring system.

Again, the whole reason for the beta system is to see who the up-and-comers are and how they relate to others in regards to getting fantasy points.

If a guy in our league tells me that Domanick Davis has a beta of 2.4, then I know that, on average, if he only rushes for 50 yards (THAT EQUALS 10 FANTASY POINTS BECAUSE WE GIVE 1PT PER 5 YARDS RUSHING) i'm gonna get 24 points from him, because of all the receptions and yards he gets from them.

I agree, TD's are unpredictable, but receptions and recieving yards are pretty predictable.

meanwhile, if a jamal lewis type has a beta of 1.2...then in know he has to rush for 100 yards to get that same 24 points.

THIS IS WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO USE THEM - WHICH DO I THINK WILL BE EASIER THIS WEEK...D.DAVIS GETTING 50 YARDS OR J LEWIS GETTING 100?

 

[videoguy505]

THIS IS WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO USE THEM - WHICH DO I THINK WILL BE EASIER THIS WEEK...D.DAVIS GETTING 50 YARDS OR J LEWIS GETTING 100?

I THINK THIS WEEK NEITHER D.DAVIS OR J LEWIS WILL GET ANY RUSHING YARDS SINCE THEY'RE NOT PLAYING.But, during the season? I think it's easier for a healthy Jamal Lewis to get 100 rushing yards than Brian Westbrook to get 60 rushing yards, since the Iggles pass so much.

 

[TheLem]

alright, i guess this is enough. i was just introducing an element that i use to sift through rb's.

I have had 4 titles in the past 10 seasons...no other owner has more than two. Again, this is a zealot league.

I'll continue using it. I don't use it, solely, though (to answer a previous question).

I use it like I use VBD...It still all comes down to instinct and luck.

thanks for commenting, though!

 

[slayer666]

What I'm looking for is multi-purpose backs.

What separates LT and LJ from guys like Jamal Lewis is that Jamal Lewis almost has to rush for 100 yards+ to have a big game

Isn't that pretty much understood without having to come up with a "beta system"?

Exactly.No offense, but this isn't exactly groundbreaking news. It's called understanding the scoring system your league adheres to and ranking the players accordingly.

 

[TheLem]

Here's how Beta helps me understand more about the game.

Anyone can say this:

Ladanian is averaging 27 fantasy points per game

Jamal Lewis is averaging 27 fantasy points per game.

but when you put in Beta and you see this

LT has a beta of 1.9

Lewis has a beta of 1.1

That tells me how they are getting their points...LT gets more without have to rush for it.

To me, that IS an important reason for beta to be used...especially in trade talks.

In our league, give me a RB who scores fantasy points but doesn't have to rely mostly on rushing yards to get his points.

It is important: It isn't a waste of time: It is a statistic just like slugging percentage is in baseball.

it tells you the power behind their hits.

of course, some of you would say, "isn't it obvious Barry Bonds is a power hitter by looking at his stat line?".

it is still used anyway.

 

[moleculo]

interesting idea - I'v always valued consistency over potiential and I've never considered RB's who get their points other than 1 yard at a time as being inconsistant. couple of questions for you:

1)How consistant is beta from week to week?

2)how consistant is your beta value from year to year?

3)How much variation do you expect?

4) How do you determine beta prior to the season? projections? last year's value?

 

[inca911]

Sorry, this isn't useful if you do any sort of projections.

If the big revelation from your system is that Westy catches a lot of balls, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Beta system doesn't add much value.

Creating a multiplier to account for percentage of points from non-rushing yards doesn't give me anything I can't get from a simple projection. If it does, please give an example.

If you want to identify the "up and coming" players, look at their stats rather than an imprecise relative number. High Beta doesn't equate to player value, only disproportional production in rushing yardage.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

What I'm looking for is multi-purpose backs.

What separates LT and LJ from guys like Jamal Lewis is that Jamal Lewis almost has to rush for 100 yards+ to have a big game...while guys like LJ and LT, because they score alot of points in other areas besides rushing yards, don't have to rush for 100 to have a big game.

If the ravens fall behind by 21...you're screwed if you own Lewis.

If the chargers or chiefs fall behind by 21...LT and LJ will still rack up the points due to receptions, recieving yards, etc.

This higher beta figure tells me how these guys score in relation to each other in regards to the fantasy points scored vs the fantasy points that comes from rushing.

on the flipside however certain backs that will have high "beta" numbers, like Brian Westbrook, will never get you high rushing yard totals which also limit their big games. this "beta" only seems to distinguish how a fantasy RBs points are obtained but don't seem to predict anything.

 

[moleculo]

Sorry, this isn't useful if you do any sort of projections.

If the big revelation from your system is that Westy catches a lot of balls, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Beta system doesn't add much value.

Creating a multiplier to account for percentage of points from non-rushing yards doesn't give me anything I can't get from a simple projection. If it does, please give an example.

If you want to identify the "up and coming" players, look at their stats rather than an imprecise relative number. High Beta doesn't equate to player value, only disproportional production in rushing yardage.

I think you are missing the point. Once projections are made, the next step typically is to apply a scoring system to arrive at rankings. I think what theLem is getting at is a different way to translate projections into rankings - essentially, he is adding weight to TD/reception heavy RB's, under the premise that these guys have more potiential to score big numbers in a given game.it's a ranking tool, not a projection tool.

 

[moleculo]

What I'm looking for is multi-purpose backs.

What separates LT and LJ from guys like Jamal Lewis is that Jamal Lewis almost has to rush for 100 yards+ to have a big game...while guys like LJ and LT, because they score alot of points in other areas besides rushing yards, don't have to rush for 100 to have a big game.

If the ravens fall behind by 21...you're screwed if you own Lewis.

If the chargers or chiefs fall behind by 21...LT and LJ will still rack up the points due to receptions, recieving yards, etc.

This higher beta figure tells me how these guys score in relation to each other in regards to the fantasy points scored vs the fantasy points that comes from rushing.

on the flipside however certain backs that will have high "beta" numbers, like Brian Westbrook, will never get you high rushing yard totals which also limit their big games. this "beta" only seems to distinguish how a fantasy RBs points are obtained but don't seem to predict anything.

it could indicate a degree of risk - higher beta, higer chance of a player scoring significantly higher than average. Of course, higher probability of significantly scoring under average.If you are playing against a team you percieve to be better than you, you need high risk players so you have a chance to outscore them - it takes some luck but at least you have a chance. Conversely, if you think you can win with an "average" game from everyone, it would be better to have low risk players.

 

[videoguy505]

There seems to be an implicit assumption under this system that all rushing yards are equally difficult to achieve. I think some rushing yards are harder to achieve than others. The idea that Westbrook is worth more than Jamal Lewis, because Westbrook only has to rush 60 yards to have the same score as Jamal would have to rush 100 to get doesn't factor in that for each of those players their ceiling in a game is different. Westbrook only broke 90 yards once last year, while when healthy Jamal has a better chance at hitting that mark. Westbrook receives for as much as he catches, hence his illusory high ranking, when in fact, he can't alwayhs be relied on either to have a consistent game.

 

[Joe T]

Interesting... Let me see if I can pull the top 10 "Beta" RB's since 1990.

 

[TheLem]

Moleculo is right...I use this as a ranking tool rather than a projection tool.

Listen fellas...I had LT in 2003 and 2004.

In 2003, LT's beta was off the charts...he had a 100 reception season...if he didn't rush for good yardage in a game...he still had very good games for me.

In 2004, LT's receptions drastically decreased (so did his beta value as well). He wasn't top 7 in our scoring system for most of the season.

His rushing yards were good, hist TD streak started...but the dropoff in receptions hurt him.

His beta value showed it to...dropping to around a 1.7 from a previous year of 2.2 or so.

Yes, I'd rather have a consistent 100 yard rusher with a beta of 1.7 than a 50 yard rusher with a beta of 3.0 (this means that my RB would have an average game score of 170 yards rushing (whatever that is worth in your league) without any 'extras' than an average game score of 150 with no extras with the RB with a 3.0.

What I do with beta is separate RB's by taking avg. rush yards x beta value.

For example, in our league 1 pt is awarded for every 5 rush yards.

so a 100 yard game is 20 points.

LT rushing for 100 yards, 6 rec for 60 yards and 1 TD = 38 fantasy point game with a beta of 1.9 (38 fantasy points / 20 points from rushing yards alone = 1.9).

If someone tells me "hey, LT had a 38 point game"..I think that's good. If someone also tells me his beta for that game was 1.9....I know that he was doing the 'extras' and that almost half his points came from other places besides rushing yards.

it is relevant, like i said, in understanding HOW a player's score relates to his rushing yardage. I, pesonally, like the High Beta guys who can rush for 1200-1400 yards a season.

I guarantee that if you go back the past 10 seasons and look at the top 10 fantasy RB's by points scored each season...then rank them by beta...you'd get who you would select first in that year's drafts out of those 10 (ie, in 2000 Faulk and James were high beta guys. Faulk didn't lead the league in rushing, not really even close...but his beta WHEW!)

Beta is just a stat...like slugging percentage is in baseball...that tells bang for the rushing yardage buck.

 

[Buttmonkey]

I always called this the "Jerome Bettis" test.

In our league...if JB didn't get a TD or two you were screwed...because his points came mostly from yardage.

I don't want guys like that.

I want guys like Edgerrin from 99 or Tiki from last year.

Yeah...they might rush for 60 yards...but they still get you those 20-30 point games because of receptions, rec yards, and TD's.

that is what i'm getting at through this beta thing...

the beta will differ according to your league rules...because we offer 1 pt per 5 yards rushing...so mike alstott's beta is alot lower in our league than in most others.

I'm telling you, i do this ranking on the top 20-30 RB's each year...it gives me a good perspective on who relies on big yardage games for most of their points or who can still get me the points even when the yards are hard to come by.

Brilliant philosophy

 

[Joe T]

I may have the formula wrong... but here are the top 30 All-Time Beta's that I can find:

Faulk	Marshall	2000        3.29     Faulk	Marshall	2001        3.04     Holmes	Priest	2002        3.01     Foreman	Chuck	1975        2.96     Holmes	Priest	2003        2.91     Moore	Lenny	1958        2.90     Moore	Lenny	1960        2.81     Allen	Marcus	1982        2.80     Craig	Roger	1985        2.77     Hofer	Paul	1980        2.76     Tomlinson	LaDainian	2003        2.75     Roberts	Eugene	1949        2.73     Tyler	Wendell	1982        2.71     Faulk	Marshall	1999        2.65     Moore	Lenny	1961        2.63     Holmes	Priest	2004        2.60     Gaines	Clark	1980        2.58     Garner	Charlie	2002        2.57     Smith	Emmitt	1995        2.56     Foreman	Chuck	1974        2.55     Allen	Marcus	1984        2.55     Brown	Bill	1964        2.53     Walker	Herschel	1986        2.52     Westbrook	Brian	2004        2.52     Haynes	Abner	1962        2.50     Moore	Lenny	1959        2.50     Walker	Herschel	1987        2.50     Andrews	William	1982        2.49     Simpson	O.J.	1975        2.49     Faulk	Marshall	1998        2.48

 

[inca911]

Sorry, this isn't useful if you do any sort of projections.

If the big revelation from your system is that Westy catches a lot of balls, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Beta system doesn't add much value.

Creating a multiplier to account for percentage of points from non-rushing yards doesn't give me anything I can't get from a simple projection.  If it does, please give an example.

If you want to identify the "up and coming" players, look at their stats rather than an imprecise relative number.  High Beta doesn't equate to player value, only disproportional production in rushing yardage.

I think you are missing the point. Once projections are made, the next step typically is to apply a scoring system to arrive at rankings. I think what theLem is getting at is a different way to translate projections into rankings - essentially, he is adding weight to TD/reception heavy RB's, under the premise that these guys have more potiential to score big numbers in a given game.it's a ranking tool, not a projection tool.

I use the term "Projections" to mean fantasy points scored by players within the context of the scoring system being used. I then use total fantasy points scored to rank players. I'm not missing the point, I just don't see any value in this Beta idea.Pass catching back = high Beta. That's not useful. Beta is NOT a measure of variability as it has been proposed here. I do use Standard Deviation to help identify consistent players, but the Beta under discussion here is not that.

If I know a player has 50% points from passing and 50% points from rushing, for a total of 30 points with high Beta, do I care how those points are obtained when I can start a player who will get 35 points, but has a lower Beta? No.

 

[moleculo]

Sorry, this isn't useful if you do any sort of projections.

If the big revelation from your system is that Westy catches a lot of balls, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Beta system doesn't add much value.

Creating a multiplier to account for percentage of points from non-rushing yards doesn't give me anything I can't get from a simple projection.  If it does, please give an example.

If you want to identify the "up and coming" players, look at their stats rather than an imprecise relative number.  High Beta doesn't equate to player value, only disproportional production in rushing yardage.

I think you are missing the point. Once projections are made, the next step typically is to apply a scoring system to arrive at rankings. I think what theLem is getting at is a different way to translate projections into rankings - essentially, he is adding weight to TD/reception heavy RB's, under the premise that these guys have more potiential to score big numbers in a given game.it's a ranking tool, not a projection tool.

I use the term "Projections" to mean fantasy points scored by players within the context of the scoring system being used. I then use total fantasy points scored to rank players. I'm not missing the point, I just don't see any value in this Beta idea.Pass catching back = high Beta. That's not useful. Beta is NOT a measure of variability as it has been proposed here. I do use Standard Deviation to help identify consistent players, but the Beta under discussion here is not that.

If I know a player has 50% points from passing and 50% points from rushing, for a total of 30 points with high Beta, do I care how those points are obtained when I can start a player who will get 35 points, but has a lower Beta? No.

the idea is to look at beta as the step between projections and rankings - not to rank based on projected overall season points. I don't necessarily agree with this and I don't think it's a good idea, but now is a good time to look at other ways of doing things and I'm willing to consider anything. IMO, what theLem is saying is that LT2 is good because he catches the ball and scores TD's - well, traditional projections/rankings can tell me that. Personally, I prefer RB's who can gain yards, because yards are more consistent than TD's. However, what this can tell us is who is most likely to have 30+ points, as opposed to a consistant 10 (of course, the high beta guy is just as likely to have 5 points as 30, IMO).

When you are discussing standard deviation - are you projecting a stdev from game to game, or are using stdev as a way to set an upper and lower bounds to projected points? both methods are useful, IMO, but the point behind beta (I think) is to adress variability from game to game. I think beta is interesting, but I'm not sure I see the utility either.

 

[TheLem]

Plain and simple on how beta is useful.

without looking at a statline...which involves many categories, columns in exel, etc.

it is a one stop figure to tell you how that back gets his points.

I respect the right for you to have a different opinion; If you don't like it, hey...that's fine.

I, however, know how to use it and 4 titles speaks for itself in a zealot league.

Really, though, it isn't about projections more than it is just a stat tool...like i've said before...like slugging percentage.

trust me, you could never use beta, and do just fine....but for guys like me who love to find new ways of looking at things...this is useful.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

What I'm looking for is multi-purpose backs.

What separates LT and LJ from guys like Jamal Lewis is that Jamal Lewis almost has to rush for 100 yards+ to have a big game...while guys like LJ and LT, because they score alot of points in other areas besides rushing yards, don't have to rush for 100 to have a big game.

If the ravens fall behind by 21...you're screwed if you own Lewis.

If the chargers or chiefs fall behind by 21...LT and LJ will still rack up the points due to receptions, recieving yards, etc.

This higher beta figure tells me how these guys score in relation to each other in regards to the fantasy points scored vs the fantasy points that comes from rushing.

on the flipside however certain backs that will have high "beta" numbers, like Brian Westbrook, will never get you high rushing yard totals which also limit their big games. this "beta" only seems to distinguish how a fantasy RBs points are obtained but don't seem to predict anything.

it could indicate a degree of risk - higher beta, higer chance of a player scoring significantly higher than average. Of course, higher probability of significantly scoring under average.If you are playing against a team you percieve to be better than you, you need high risk players so you have a chance to outscore them - it takes some luck but at least you have a chance. Conversely, if you think you can win with an "average" game from everyone, it would be better to have low risk players.

I believe Moleculo nailed it here.

If you have 4-5 guys in a "tier" and you are on the clock to draft, do you want the higher beta or the lower beta guy? That's a personal choice. Westy is ALWAYS part of the receiving game in Philly, so I'm fine with a high beta there.

As far as weekly decisions - if you're facing the toughest team in the league and you need some "risk" to try and outpoint him, higher beta guys give you that shot.

I'm not saying start Ayanbadejo over Westy - that's just crazy. However, starting Westy over Jamal Lewis when both are projected to get 12-13 points may give you a better chance to get a 20+ day from your RB.

 

[E_Smith]

It seems to me that the beta value would only be useful if it was a predictor of std deviation. Your argument for high beta guys rests on the assumption that because they don't need a high rushing performance to yield a high scoring game, they therefore must be more consistent performers. So you would pick someone like Westbrook over someone like Rudi Johnson.

I tend to think in the opposite direction. In general, if two runningbacks are in the same tier for my leagues scoring system (which includes 0.5 ppr), I prefer the guy with more rushing yards because I regard this player as more consistent. These players also tend to score more rushing TDs than the all purpose kind (LT notwithstanding).

On the other hand, I might see a player like Westbrook as having more "upside" because of all the other things he does... so that if he gets more rushing yards in addition, he could really break out for the season, whereas a Rudi Johnson's upside is more stable.

Bottomline, I think the high beta players are generally less consistent, not more, and you have your logic backwards on this one. They might be more likely to hit a home run game if you are facing a superior opponent, but I don't draft with the plan of having an inferior squad.

 

[GregR_2]

...

it could indicate a degree of risk - higher beta, higer chance of a player scoring significantly higher than average. Of course, higher probability of significantly scoring under average.

If you are playing against a team you percieve to be better than you, you need high risk players so you have a chance to outscore them - it takes some luck but at least you have a chance. Conversely, if you think you can win with an "average" game from everyone, it would be better to have low risk players.

I believe Moleculo nailed it here.

If you have 4-5 guys in a "tier" and you are on the clock to draft, do you want the higher beta or the lower beta guy? That's a personal choice. Westy is ALWAYS part of the receiving game in Philly, so I'm fine with a high beta there.

As far as weekly decisions - if you're facing the toughest team in the league and you need some "risk" to try and outpoint him, higher beta guys give you that shot.

I'm not saying start Ayanbadejo over Westy - that's just crazy. However, starting Westy over Jamal Lewis when both are projected to get 12-13 points may give you a better chance to get a 20+ day from your RB.

Seems to me it would be as or more likely to be the opposite of what he said. If a guy's points come primarly from rushing yards, then he will probably do well in games where his team is in a position to run the ball, and do poorly when his team is not in a position to run the ball or when the rush is stuffed. To put a real world face on it, if you own Jamal Lewis, the very last thing you want to see is the Ravens down by 21 at half time, because you know Jamal will probably not get many touches the rest of the games since he isn't used in the passing game much.I would think a RB who can get points from receiving and rushing would be a lot more likely to hit close to his average than a guy who depended on points from just one source. Of course, we'd need to put that to the test to find out, as right now everyone is just saying what we "think" it would be. We don't know for sure which factors will win out.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a way to rank your players though just because that makes it sound like you should rank your players based it primarily. It might provide a little insight into riskiness of a player, but you're still better off with points per game as your basis and then adjusting it for factors it doesn't include, like this.

Edit to add: Were it me, I'd probably drop the name "beta" and call it run/rec ratio or something like that. For that matter, I'd probably separate out run, rec, and TDs as each has it's own meaning it would be useful to know how much of their points comes from that area.

 

[inca911]

As far as weekly decisions - if you're facing the toughest team in the league and you need some "risk" to try and outpoint him, higher beta guys give you that shot.

Beta as proposed is NOT a measure of deviation. Standard deviation is useful to identify high risk/reward players, but this Beta has nothing to do with variablity, only general scoring distribution between rushing yards and other scoring means.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

As far as weekly decisions - if you're facing the toughest team in the league and you need some "risk" to try and outpoint him, higher beta guys give you that shot.

Beta as proposed is NOT a measure of deviation. Standard deviation is useful to identify high risk/reward players, but this Beta has nothing to do with variablity, only general scoring distribution between rushing yards and other scoring means.

Adding argument to dropping the name "beta".

 

[moleculo]

Seems to me it would be as or more likely to be the opposite of what he said. If a guy's points come primarly from rushing yards, then he will probably do well in games where his team is in a position to run the ball, and do poorly when his team is not in a position to run the ball or when the rush is stuffed. To put a real world face on it, if you own Jamal Lewis, the very last thing you want to see is the Ravens down by 21 at half time, because you know Jamal will probably not get many touches the rest of the games since he isn't used in the passing game much.

I would think a RB who can get points from receiving and rushing would be a lot more likely to hit close to his average than a guy who depended on points from just one source. Of course, we'd need to put that to the test to find out, as right now everyone is just saying what we "think" it would be. We don't know for sure which factors will win out.

good point. If I get some free time tonight, I'll do a quick analysis. My assumption is that high "beta" correlates to high week to week variation, GregR seems to think the opposite. In all reality, there may not be any correlation at all.also - I'm for dropping "beta" as well; "beta" has a statistical meaning.

 

[TheLem]

Fellas,

I have a degree in Marketing, but my minor was in statistical analysis.

Beta, a component of Modern Portfolio Theory statistics, is a measure of a fund's sensitivity to market movements.

Beta, in fantasy football, to me, is a measure of a Rb's points output sensitive to his points from rushing.

You all keep using outliers (ie, Westbrook and comparing him to solid rushing backs like rudi johnson) to make the argument that you would rather have lower beta guys because they are more 'consistent'. Let me tell you that there are guys with high 'beta' values who rush for good yardage.

But as I think about it, Beta probably isn't the right term to use because you can't go below 1.0 in this statistic...and in a true beta measurement you can; calling it an 'Index'

is probably a more appropriate term.

You may think of it like the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which is a form of beta.

The national average for milk could be $2 a gallon...and in NYC's CPI is 1.9...that means that you'd pay an average of $3.80 per gallon.

Well...you could make the argument..."why do i need to know CPI...I already know the price by looking at it".

to you..the laymen...you would be right...but to an Economist CPI is important.

 

[E_Smith]

Fellas,

I have a degree in Marketing, but my minor was in statistical analysis.

I know what beta means.

Beta, a component of Modern Portfolio Theory statistics, is a measure of a fund's sensitivity to market movements.

Beta, in fantasy football, to me, is a measure of a Rb's points output sensitive to his points from rushing.

You all keep using outliers (ie, Westbrook and comparing him to solid rushing backs like rudi johnson) to make the argument that you would rather have lower beta guys.

You may think of it like the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which is a form of beta.

The national average for milk could be $2 a gallon...and in NYC's CPI is 1.9...that means that you'd pay an average of $3.80 per gallon.

Well...you could make the argument..."why do i need to know CPI...I already know the price by looking at it".

to you..the laymen...you would be right...but to an Economist CPI is important.

Please explain how we are using outliers to argue for lower beta guys.You haven't proven that beta is predictive of variability... which was your original hypothesis. I don't know for sure if beta is correlated to std deviation, but my guess is that lower beta guys have less std deviation. In my opinion, if two players are at the same level is points per week, its better to have the more consistent guy. If beta is not correlated to variability, then its pretty much useless.

 

[TheLem]

An outlier, is a piece of data that is off from the normal distribution (usually outside the 2nd or even 3rd, in extreme cases, standard deviation).

for example...if 10 people lived in a town...and 9 of them had incomes between 40K and 50K...but the 10th made 500K a year...

then the mean income would be around 90K...though 90% made less than that.

The person with the 500k income would be an outlier, a figure that skews the statistics or is an anomaly.

That is why 'Median' and 'Mode' are important in statistics.

Westbrook had special teams return yardage for a couple of seasons there (both kickoff and return points). This shot his beta value up. Many leagues do not count those stats in on RB's, while others do.

However, beta does not show consistency...because you can rush for 5 yards one game and have a beta of 2.4 and rush for 125 yards another game and have the same beta value of 2.4...This isn't meant to show 'consistency'.

but, if you take the 'consistent' rb's, say setting a baseline of at least 1200 yards rushing, then take the beta values...you'll find the studs are the higher beta guys.

but, it probably is better to term this as an 'points earned to rush' index. though i'm not satisfied with that name.

however, you'd be a fool if you took a RB in a trade who rushed for 1600 yards with a beta of 1.2 vs a rb who rushed for 1200 yards but has a beta value of 2.0...and by using this 'beta' or 'index' you'd not have to sit down and pour over the stat lines.

 

[E_Smith]

An outlier, is a piece of data that is off from the normal distribution (usually outside the 2nd or even 3rd, in extreme cases, standard deviation).

for example...if 10 people lived in a town...and 9 of them had incomes between 40K and 50K...but the 10th made 500K a year...

then the mean income would be around 90K...though 90% made less than that.

The person with the 500k income would be an outlier, a figure that skews the statistics or is an anomaly.

That is why 'Median' and 'Mode' are important in statistics.

Westbrook had special teams return yardage for a couple of seasons there (both kickoff and return points).  This shot his beta value up.  Many leagues do not count those stats in on RB's, while others do.

However, beta does not show consistency...because you can rush for 5 yards one game and have a beta of 2.4 and rush for 125 yards another game and have the same beta value of 2.4...This isn't meant to show 'consistency'.

but, if you take the 'consistent' rb's, say setting a baseline of at least 1200 yards rushing, then take the beta values...you'll find the studs are the higher beta guys.

but, it probably is better to term this as an 'points earned to rush' index.  though i'm not satisfied with that name.

however,  you'd be a fool if you took a RB in a trade who rushed for 1600 yards with a beta of 1.2 vs a rb who rushed for 1200 yards but has a beta value of 2.0...and by using this 'beta' or 'index' you'd not have to sit down and pour over the stat lines.

well, I get what the beta is... don't get how its useful. Of course if you take guys with the same rushing yardage the higher beta guys are going to be better. I don't see how this adds anything that projections don't provide. You stated before that for two RBs with similar output, higher beta is better, I assume because you think the higher beta guys are more reliable (i.e. consistent?)... why don't you provide us some data to back that up.

 

[GregR_2]

well, I get what the beta is... don't get how its useful. Of course if you take guys with the same rushing yardage the higher beta guys are going to be better. I don't see how this adds anything that projections don't provide. You stated before that for two RBs with similar output, higher beta is better, I assume because you think the higher beta guys are more reliable (i.e. consistent?)... why don't you provide us some data to back that up.

I agree completely. So far it hasn't been shown to tell us anything that total points doesn't already.For it to be useful, you need to show it correlates to something that we care about in our decision making.