Question about the "if you take out that big play" argument (1 Viewer)

[dawgtrails]

Are we speaking fantasy or real world here?

Fantasy, I want the Barry Sanders type...negative yards overcompensated by huge gains.

Real world...probablt want more of the Emmit Smith run for 4 yards every time

 

[Marc Levin]

I can imagine a LOT of useful applications of the numbers redman wants. Taking YPC and moving on was a flippant answer because you implied that the information he wants has no practical application.

it doesn't, especially without taking in the stat:carries which as I said before, none of you have done.If you disagree then give me one, give me a practical application. I can sure give ya one with total yards(FBG ranking) or carries:

http://www.nfl.com/stats/leaders/NFL/RYDS/2006/regular

show me a RB with 600 or more carries not doing well

ETA top rushers by average aren't even starting RBs:

Michael Vick, Jerrius Norwood, and Michael Turner

???what the heck does that have to do with redman's query?

It is the user's decision who to apply the info to. I would imagine he doesn't care about high YPC specifically, but wants to know whether the player's average is skewed by more or less big runs.

Not that the player's numbers being skewed is a good or bad thing - - but KNOWING IF THEY ARE skewed tells you more information about the player, his OL, and whether he might duplicate that success on another team.

For the extreme example, Barry Sanders on the Cards would still run for the same type of yardage. And for the practical application, would DeShaun Foster? How about Willie Parker? How about Tatum Bell?

I would have numerical proof to show that Edge would not do well in AZ without the good Indy OL in front of him. If you take the 4.0 guy who always gets between 3 and 5 and put him behind a poorer OL that has been producing 3.5 for its RBs, I'd expect that RB to run 2 to 4 yards most of the time. Without redman's stats, you don't have empirical proof for why Edge would fail in AZ.

 

[Marc Levin]

Are we speaking fantasy or real world here?Fantasy, I want the Barry Sanders type...negative yards overcompensated by huge gains.Real world...probablt want more of the Emmit Smith run for 4 yards every time

I don't know why redman wants the numbers.He was just asking how to go about it.I can see useful applications of those numbers - but mostly to analyze OLs, and not as much to analyze RBs.

 

[CalBear]

No back except Barry Sanders (plug him in for S-RB#2) could make chicken salad out of the chicken #### that was Detroit's OL most of the years he was there. Thus, Barry's lines were often negative one yard, two yards, negative one yard, 55 yards and a TD. (rinse, punt, gett he ball, repeat)Barry's backup would not have been able to do crap behind that OL.

I don't think that's necessarily true. In 1993, Barry missed 5 games, averaged 4.6 ypc and scored 3 TDs. His backup, Derrick Moore, averaged 4.6 ypc and scored 3 TDs in fewer carries. Unfortunately, that's the only year of Sanders' career that any of his backups saw significant time, so it's hard to say what would have happened.

 

[radballs]

I can see useful applications of those numbers - but mostly to analyze OLs, and not as much to analyze RBs.

Marc,I agree with most of your points in this thread, but it seems that just because a RB has a relatively low SD per carry does not mean that the OL is significantly performing better than other ones. Maybe it depends on the style in which the RB runs. Maybe the RB2 (backup) has a completely different skill set than RB1. Parts of these arguments seem to be going in circles.

 

[Marc Levin]

I can see useful applications of those numbers - but mostly to analyze OLs, and not as much to analyze RBs.

Marc,I agree with most of your points in this thread, but it seems that just because a RB has a relatively low SD per carry does not mean that the OL is significantly performing better than other ones. Maybe it depends on the style in which the RB runs. Maybe the RB2 (backup) has a completely different skill set than RB1. Parts of these arguments seem to be going in circles.

complete agreement.it is merely an indicator - I never put my faith in any one number - it is important to use all the tools at your disposal. And I could see a lot of useful application for this data.I was using an extreme example to make a point. Imagine an RB who runs between 3.5 and 4.5 yards EVERY SINGLE carry - he never, ever gets more, but he never ever gets less. That would be a strong indicator that it is the OL and not the back that is getting the RB to 4 yards every single carry.On the flip side, an RB with negative yards on a lot of plays is playing behind an OL that allows a lot of penetration.Incidentally, CalBear, that '93 Detroit team was a playoff team - as I said "most" years Barry was there, he had a poor OL. It is amazing the length of Sanders' career

 

[Bri]

I can imagine a LOT of useful applications of the numbers redman wants. Taking YPC and moving on was a flippant answer because you implied that the information he wants has no practical application.

it doesn't, especially without taking in the stat:carries which as I said before, none of you have done.If you disagree then give me one, give me a practical application. I can sure give ya one with total yards(FBG ranking) or carries:

http://www.nfl.com/stats/leaders/NFL/RYDS/2006/regular

show me a RB with 600 or more carries not doing well

ETA top rushers by average aren't even starting RBs:

Michael Vick, Jerrius Norwood, and Michael Turner

???what the heck does that have to do with redman's query?

It is the user's decision who to apply the info to. I would imagine he doesn't care about high YPC specifically, but wants to know whether the player's average is skewed by more or less big runs.

Not that the player's numbers being skewed is a good or bad thing - - but KNOWING IF THEY ARE skewed tells you more information about the player, his OL, and whether he might duplicate that success on another team.

For the extreme example, Barry Sanders on the Cards would still run for the same type of yardage. And for the practical application, would DeShaun Foster? How about Willie Parker? How about Tatum Bell?

I would have numerical proof to show that Edge would not do well in AZ without the good Indy OL in front of him. If you take the 4.0 guy who always gets between 3 and 5 and put him behind a poorer OL that has been producing 3.5 for its RBs, I'd expect that RB to run 2 to 4 yards most of the time. Without redman's stats, you don't have empirical proof for why Edge would fail in AZ.

Seems neither is getting their point across here. Regardless GL with your theory and applications and all.

 

[Marc Levin]

Seems neither is getting their point across here. Regardless GL with your theory and applications and all.

No - I GOT your point. I've had it from the start.What theory do I have?What applications are you talking about?redman asked about how he might analyze deeply into YPC - you went ahead and poo-poo'ed (<--- it's a word. Look it up) his question by saying "just take the YPC and move on."You then seemed to disagree that the numbers redman wants would have useful application - imagine what Mootej did with LT's numbers, but with EVERY RB in the league.Are you honestly trying to tell me that seeing those numbers would not be helpful to you in looking at a RB's YPC????

 

[Bri]

Seems neither is getting their point across here. Regardless GL with your theory and applications and all.

No - I GOT your point. I've had it from the start.What theory do I have?What applications are you talking about?redman asked about how he might analyze deeply into YPC - you went ahead and poo-poo'ed (<--- it's a word. Look it up) his question by saying "just take the YPC and move on."You then seemed to disagree that the numbers redman wants would have useful application - imagine what Mootej did with LT's numbers, but with EVERY RB in the league.Are you honestly trying to tell me that seeing those numbers would not be helpful to you in looking at a RB's YPC????

just trying to politely end a runaround is all

 

[Marc Levin]

OK then.