The 400 carry law for RBs, fact or fiction? (1 Viewer)

[Da Guru]

All of these RBs had way less than 400 carries in 2006, All of these RBs have missed games from being injured or are out for the season in 2007.

My feeling is that if you play RB in the NFL, every carry could be your last, be it if you had 500 carries or 50 carries the year before.

These 2007 RBs are just off the top of my head, I am sure I am missing some.

1. Cedric Benson

2. Brandon Jackson

3. Priest Holmes

4. Caddy Williams

5. Ricky Williams

6. Rudi Johnson

7. Deshawn Wynn

8. Travis Henry

9. Selvin Young

10. Sammy Morris

11. Jamel Lewis

12. ADP

13. Chester Taylor

14. J. Addai

15. Lamont Jordan

16. D. McCallister

17. Reggie Bush??

18. Mike Pittman

19. Andre Hall

20. Ahman Green

21. Ronnie Brown

22. M...shawn Lynch

23. S. Alexander

24. TJ Duckett

25. Frank Gore

26. Anthony Thomas

27. Brandon Jacobs

28. Deric Ward

29. Chris Brown

 

[eom]

maybe it should be revised down to the 100 carry law.

 

[Da Guru]

maybe it should be revised down to the 100 carry law.

Exactly..

 

[Couch Potato]

22. Meshawn Lynch

Whoshawn?

 

[Da Guru]

Whoshawn?

I must have been thinking about MEshawn Johnson.

 

[FantasyTrader]

This was an abnormal year re: RB attrition. Attempting to take any stats or circumstance from the running back pool of '07 and apply it to any multi year strategy concepts will lead to big boo-boos.

 

[Wadsworth]

The simple solution is to only draft running backs that get no playing time at all. They are by far the least likely to get hurt. Afterall, who wants a RB that gets the rock 400 times a season? He could get injured!

 

[MCguidance]

This was an abnormal year re: RB attrition. Attempting to take any stats or circumstance from the running back pool of '07 and apply it to any multi year strategy concepts will lead to big boo-boos.

A FF year like this - in which RBs are devalued going into next year - makes the draft board the following season very interesting. I believe that 2008 will see a premium placed on some QBs and WRs, making some of the RBs who were underwhelming this year fall into the lap of those at a lower draft position.

 

[Ilov80s]

This was an abnormal year re: RB attrition. Attempting to take any stats or circumstance from the running back pool of '07 and apply it to any multi year strategy concepts will lead to big boo-boos.

A FF year like this - in which RBs are devalued going into next year - makes the draft board the following season very interesting. I believe that 2008 will see a premium placed on some QBs and WRs, making some of the RBs who were underwhelming this year fall into the lap of those at a lower draft position.

I agree 100%. Next year Brady and Moss are locks for 1st round. I could see TO going 1st round as well.

 

[Gaddis]

I thought the 400 carry law had to do more with diminishing effectiveness the following year, not necessarily due to injury.

 

[ceo3west]

This was an abnormal year re: RB attrition. Attempting to take any stats or circumstance from the running back pool of '07 and apply it to any multi year strategy concepts will lead to big boo-boos.

Agreed, 2007 has been abnormal. I've never seen this many injuries in one year. As for the 400+ carries, history has shown that these RB's are in fact likely to bust or get injured the following year. Reasons for this happening are irrelevant, but facts are facts.

 

[CalBear]

I thought the 400 carry law had to do more with diminishing effectiveness the following year, not necessarily due to injury.

Right. It goes right along with the 5+ypc law, the 15+TD law, and the 80+receptions law.When looked at as populations, exceptional performances will always result in diminishing effectiveness the following year. That doesn't mean it's predictive.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I thought the 400 carry law had to do more with diminishing effectiveness the following year, not necessarily due to injury.

Right. It goes right along with the 5+ypc law, the 15+TD law, and the 80+receptions law.When looked at as populations, exceptional performances will always result in diminishing effectiveness the following year. That doesn't mean it's predictive.

THANK YOU

 

[Da Guru]

I thought the 400 carry law had to do more with diminishing effectiveness the following year, not necessarily due to injury.

Right. It goes right along with the 5+ypc law, the 15+TD law, and the 80+receptions law.When looked at as populations, exceptional performances will always result in diminishing effectiveness the following year. That doesn't mean it's predictive.

THANK YOU

This post was because some people claim the reason LJ was hurt this year is because he had 400 carries the season before. I say a RB is at risk every game regardless of his history, and that list proved it. There are rookies, part time RBs, vets all who have been injured.LT has averaged around 350 carries for his career, plus around 60 receptions for over 400 touches a year with a high of around 430. I think a swing pass is the same as a running a sweep.... LT stats have remained pretty solid throughout.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

I thought the 400 carry law had to do more with diminishing effectiveness the following year, not necessarily due to injury.

Right. It goes right along with the 5+ypc law, the 15+TD law, and the 80+receptions law.When looked at as populations, exceptional performances will always result in diminishing effectiveness the following year. That doesn't mean it's predictive.

THANK YOU

This post was because some people claim the reason LJ was hurt this year is because he had 400 carries the season before. I say a RB is at risk every game regardless of his history, and that list proved it. There are rookies, part time RBs, vets all who have been injured.LT has averaged around 350 carries for his career, plus around 60 receptions for over 400 touches a year with a high of around 430. I think a swing pass is the same as a running a sweep.... LT stats have remained pretty solid throughout.

I think it was a good subject to bring up, and the frequency of RB injuries shows that there is little or no correlation between work the year before and injuries the next year. Get me some physiological evidence - showing me that the wear of the year before was so severe that it hadnt completely healed and THAT was the basis for injuries the next year, and then I'll buy it, but showing that none of the guys with 400 carries did as well the next year is not convincing for me in the least bit, especially not with such a small sample size.

 

[Da Guru]

I thought the 400 carry law had to do more with diminishing effectiveness the following year, not necessarily due to injury.

Right. It goes right along with the 5+ypc law, the 15+TD law, and the 80+receptions law.When looked at as populations, exceptional performances will always result in diminishing effectiveness the following year. That doesn't mean it's predictive.

THANK YOU

This post was because some people claim the reason LJ was hurt this year is because he had 400 carries the season before. I say a RB is at risk every game regardless of his history, and that list proved it. There are rookies, part time RBs, vets all who have been injured.LT has averaged around 350 carries for his career, plus around 60 receptions for over 400 touches a year with a high of around 430. I think a swing pass is the same as a running a sweep.... LT stats have remained pretty solid throughout.

I think it was a good subject to bring up, and the frequency of RB injuries shows that there is little or no correlation between work the year before and injuries the next year. Get me some physiological evidence - showing me that the wear of the year before was so severe that it hadnt completely healed and THAT was the basis for injuries the next year, and then I'll buy it, but showing that none of the guys with 400 carries did as well the next year is not convincing for me in the least bit, especially not with such a small sample size.

I agree. The difference between LT have 350 or 400 carries a year for his whole career is 2-3 carries a game. I don`t see much difference in 2-3 more carries or blocking a bull rushing 300 DL 2-3 more times.

 

[az_prof]

I thought the 400 carry law had to do more with diminishing effectiveness the following year, not necessarily due to injury.

Right. It goes right along with the 5+ypc law, the 15+TD law, and the 80+receptions law.When looked at as populations, exceptional performances will always result in diminishing effectiveness the following year. That doesn't mean it's predictive.

THANK YOU

This post was because some people claim the reason LJ was hurt this year is because he had 400 carries the season before. I say a RB is at risk every game regardless of his history, and that list proved it. There are rookies, part time RBs, vets all who have been injured.LT has averaged around 350 carries for his career, plus around 60 receptions for over 400 touches a year with a high of around 430. I think a swing pass is the same as a running a sweep.... LT stats have remained pretty solid throughout.

I know LJ owners would like to imagine that they were the victims of fate and that although many of us told them that LJ was likely to have down year and they didn't listen that somehow they can't be blamed for not seeing the possibility of a down year. Sorry. The 400 plus carry law is a fact. But even more compelling and something you should have known was that backs who sit out preseason training camp are also more likely to get hurt. When you add together the declining effectiveness of the OL (something you should have foreseen but people didn't want to admit), the 400 plus year, AND holding out, it was a recipe for a down year. Bottom line is if you drafted LJ in the first couple of picks, you should have known better.

 

[Da Guru]

I thought the 400 carry law had to do more with diminishing effectiveness the following year, not necessarily due to injury.

Right. It goes right along with the 5+ypc law, the 15+TD law, and the 80+receptions law.When looked at as populations, exceptional performances will always result in diminishing effectiveness the following year. That doesn't mean it's predictive.

THANK YOU

This post was because some people claim the reason LJ was hurt this year is because he had 400 carries the season before. I say a RB is at risk every game regardless of his history, and that list proved it. There are rookies, part time RBs, vets all who have been injured.

LT has averaged around 350 carries for his career, plus around 60 receptions for over 400 touches a year with a high of around 430. I think a swing pass is the same as a running a sweep.... LT stats have remained pretty solid throughout.

I know LJ owners would like to imagine that they were the victims of fate and that although many of us told them that LJ was likely to have down year and they didn't listen that somehow they can't be blamed for not seeing the possibility of a down year. Sorry. The 400 plus carry law is a fact. But even more compelling and something you should have known was that backs who sit out preseason training camp are also more likely to get hurt. When you add together the declining effectiveness of the OL (something you should have foreseen but people didn't want to admit), the 400 plus year, AND holding out, it was a recipe for a down year. Bottom line is if you drafted LJ in the first couple of picks, you should have known better.

I think not having a QB,and the O-line decimated are the biggest factors. The sitting out the pre-season had nothing to do with this injury. When a 260LB linebacker is dragging you down from behind and crushed your foot under his body, it really does not matter if you had 1000 carries the year before and played every day in training camp.

The missing training camp injuries are usually the muscle pulls and strains.

The Chiefs also played agains the toughest run defenses early in the schedule. LJ had 4 good games in a row and was coming into the soft part. There is no reason he would not have finished with 10-12 TDs and at least 1300 yards rushing. Not great by his standards but not too bad.

 

[Wadsworth]

I thought the 400 carry law had to do more with diminishing effectiveness the following year, not necessarily due to injury.

Right. It goes right along with the 5+ypc law, the 15+TD law, and the 80+receptions law.When looked at as populations, exceptional performances will always result in diminishing effectiveness the following year. That doesn't mean it's predictive.

THANK YOU

This post was because some people claim the reason LJ was hurt this year is because he had 400 carries the season before. I say a RB is at risk every game regardless of his history, and that list proved it. There are rookies, part time RBs, vets all who have been injured.LT has averaged around 350 carries for his career, plus around 60 receptions for over 400 touches a year with a high of around 430. I think a swing pass is the same as a running a sweep.... LT stats have remained pretty solid throughout.

I know LJ owners would like to imagine that they were the victims of fate and that although many of us told them that LJ was likely to have down year and they didn't listen that somehow they can't be blamed for not seeing the possibility of a down year. Sorry. The 400 plus carry law is a fact. But even more compelling and something you should have known was that backs who sit out preseason training camp are also more likely to get hurt. When you add together the declining effectiveness of the OL (something you should have foreseen but people didn't want to admit), the 400 plus year, AND holding out, it was a recipe for a down year. Bottom line is if you drafted LJ in the first couple of picks, you should have known better.

Yea, if only he was on the cover of Madden also it would have been more obvious. You can make a case that Johnson's holdout and a tough schedule early should have been a sign that he might get off to a slow start. But Larry Johnson is a very talented RB that was the focal point of his team's offense. O-line concerns were a concern, but not something that should have dropped LJ too much. The O-line was good enough to have LJ playing very well before injury and Kolby Smith has performed well in his absense. The 400 touch thing is a joke and far from "fact".

 

[Da Guru]

I thought the 400 carry law had to do more with diminishing effectiveness the following year, not necessarily due to injury.

Right. It goes right along with the 5+ypc law, the 15+TD law, and the 80+receptions law.When looked at as populations, exceptional performances will always result in diminishing effectiveness the following year. That doesn't mean it's predictive.

THANK YOU

This post was because some people claim the reason LJ was hurt this year is because he had 400 carries the season before. I say a RB is at risk every game regardless of his history, and that list proved it. There are rookies, part time RBs, vets all who have been injured.LT has averaged around 350 carries for his career, plus around 60 receptions for over 400 touches a year with a high of around 430. I think a swing pass is the same as a running a sweep.... LT stats have remained pretty solid throughout.

I know LJ owners would like to imagine that they were the victims of fate and that although many of us told them that LJ was likely to have down year and they didn't listen that somehow they can't be blamed for not seeing the possibility of a down year. Sorry. The 400 plus carry law is a fact. But even more compelling and something you should have known was that backs who sit out preseason training camp are also more likely to get hurt. When you add together the declining effectiveness of the OL (something you should have foreseen but people didn't want to admit), the 400 plus year, AND holding out, it was a recipe for a down year. Bottom line is if you drafted LJ in the first couple of picks, you should have known better.

Yea, if only he was on the cover of Madden also it would have been more obvious. You can make a case that Johnson's holdout and a tough schedule early should have been a sign that he might get off to a slow start. But Larry Johnson is a very talented RB that was the focal point of his team's offense. O-line concerns were a concern, but not something that should have dropped LJ too much. The O-line was good enough to have LJ playing very well before injury and Kolby Smith has performed well in his absense. The 400 touch thing is a joke and far from "fact".

The reason I agree is that LT has had 6 straight and soon to be 7 straight season of over 400 touches, with a high of 450, (380 carries-70 receptions).

 

[CalBear]

The 400 plus carry law is a fact.

Here's what's a fact: Look at any population which has performed significantly above the mean in year N, and the population will regress towards the mean in year N+1. 400 carries is more than two standard deviations above the mean, which for those of you who aren't stat geeks means that it's an extremely rare occurrence (which you probably knew already).Let's look at another example of exceptional performance; rushing yardage. I haven't done this analysis yet, but I am going to hypothesize that leading the league in rushing is correlated with a decline in productivity the next year. Let's test the hypothesis. Here are the league rushing leaders for the past 10 years:

Year	Rushing leader	Fantasy points	Fantasy points (year N+1)2006	Tomlinson			   427				  299 (projected)2005	Alexander			   364				  1362004	Martin				  278				  1152003	Lewis				   311				  1542002	R.Williams			  324				  2322001	Holmes				  277				  3732000	James				   338				  1041999	James				   316				  3381998	T.Davis				 361				   351997	B.Sanders			   320				  202		Average				 332				  199

What does this chart tell us? In the past 10 years, the league rushing leader has scored fewer fantasy points 80% of the time in year N+1. The average fantasy score for this population declined 40% in year N+1. Does this mean that you should avoid the league rushing leader when drafting? Absolutely not! That's a common and obvious statistical fallacy. It doesn't matter what stat you're looking at: carries, rushing yards, fantasy points, yard per carry average. The top of any of those populations will show the same kind of significant drop in year N+1. Avoiding a back because he had too many carries makes no more sense than avoiding a back because he had too many rushing yards, or too many fantasy points.

 

[SSOG]

I thought the 400 carry law had to do more with diminishing effectiveness the following year, not necessarily due to injury.

Right. It goes right along with the 5+ypc law, the 15+TD law, and the 80+receptions law.When looked at as populations, exceptional performances will always result in diminishing effectiveness the following year. That doesn't mean it's predictive.

THANK YOU

This post was because some people claim the reason LJ was hurt this year is because he had 400 carries the season before. I say a RB is at risk every game regardless of his history, and that list proved it. There are rookies, part time RBs, vets all who have been injured.LT has averaged around 350 carries for his career, plus around 60 receptions for over 400 touches a year with a high of around 430. I think a swing pass is the same as a running a sweep.... LT stats have remained pretty solid throughout.

In 2005, Larry Johnson received an insane workload (not 370 carries, which is the usual cutoff point, but 261 carries in 9 games is INSANE). The following year, his ypc dropped by .9. In 2006, he received an even more ridiculous workload. The following year, his ypc dropped by an additional .8.You can talk about regression to the mean all you want, but falling from 5.2 ypc to 3.5 ypc in the span of two years *IS NOT REGRESSION TO THE MEAN*. That's regression to way, way, way below the mean. There has to be some sort of outside explanation for that.

The reason I agree is that LT has had 6 straight and soon to be 7 straight season of over 400 touches, with a high of 450, (380 carries-70 receptions).

Studies have shown a negative correlation between rushes and performance next season, but zero correlation whatsoever between receptions and performance next season. Only the rushes matter.

 

[Da Guru]

I thought the 400 carry law had to do more with diminishing effectiveness the following year, not necessarily due to injury.

Right. It goes right along with the 5+ypc law, the 15+TD law, and the 80+receptions law.When looked at as populations, exceptional performances will always result in diminishing effectiveness the following year. That doesn't mean it's predictive.

THANK YOU

This post was because some people claim the reason LJ was hurt this year is because he had 400 carries the season before. I say a RB is at risk every game regardless of his history, and that list proved it. There are rookies, part time RBs, vets all who have been injured.LT has averaged around 350 carries for his career, plus around 60 receptions for over 400 touches a year with a high of around 430. I think a swing pass is the same as a running a sweep.... LT stats have remained pretty solid throughout.

In 2005, Larry Johnson received an insane workload (not 370 carries, which is the usual cutoff point, but 261 carries in 9 games is INSANE). The following year, his ypc dropped by .9. In 2006, he received an even more ridiculous workload. The following year, his ypc dropped by an additional .8.You can talk about regression to the mean all you want, but falling from 5.2 ypc to 3.5 ypc in the span of two years *IS NOT REGRESSION TO THE MEAN*. That's regression to way, way, way below the mean. There has to be some sort of outside explanation for that.

The reason I agree is that LT has had 6 straight and soon to be 7 straight season of over 400 touches, with a high of 450, (380 carries-70 receptions).

Studies have shown a negative correlation between rushes and performance next season, but zero correlation whatsoever between receptions and performance next season. Only the rushes matter.

Why? Because it does not fit the theory? A touch is a touch. The abuse you take catching the ball out of the backfield is the same, in fact LJ was injured on a pass play.

 

[CalBear]

Studies have shown a negative correlation between rushes and performance next season, but zero correlation whatsoever between receptions and performance next season. Only the rushes matter.

That Football Outsiders "study" is complete junk.

 

[SSOG]

Why? Because it does not fit the theory? A touch is a touch. The abuse you take catching the ball out of the backfield is the same, in fact LJ was injured on a pass play.

Not because it doesn't fit the theory... because it doesn't fit the DATA. The correlation coefficient between carries in year N and production in year N+1 is negative. The correlation coefficient between catches in year N and production in year N+1 is actually slightly POSITIVE, albeit very, very, very insignificantly minute.

 

[AnonymousBob]

In 2005, Larry Johnson received an insane workload (not 370 carries, which is the usual cutoff point, but 261 carries in 9 games is INSANE). The following year, his ypc dropped by .9. In 2006, he received an even more ridiculous workload. The following year, his ypc dropped by an additional .8.You can talk about regression to the mean all you want, but falling from 5.2 ypc to 3.5 ypc in the span of two years *IS NOT REGRESSION TO THE MEAN*. That's regression to way, way, way below the mean. There has to be some sort of outside explanation for that.

Pro-Bowl caliber offensive lineman retiring may have something to do with why his ypc dropped.

 

[gheemony]

Why? Because it does not fit the theory? A touch is a touch. The abuse you take catching the ball out of the backfield is the same, in fact LJ was injured on a pass play.

Not because it doesn't fit the theory... because it doesn't fit the DATA. The correlation coefficient between carries in year N and production in year N+1 is negative. The correlation coefficient between catches in year N and production in year N+1 is actually slightly POSITIVE, albeit very, very, very insignificantly minute.

SSOG, don't waste your time. This is one of the most emotional topics in fantasy fooball. You can stick the entire Football Prospectus article about 370 carries in front of those who don't believe and they won't change their opinion. They'll simply say it is bogus. Consider it one of your competitive advantages - you'll be (and I'll be) evaluating players with this rule in mind while others will not. It will have spared you LJ this year, SA the year before, Curtis Martin the year before that, ...You'll have to take pleasure out of the resulting success in your fantasy leagues and not out of converting Shark Pool readers about 370 carries.PLEASE keep on posting. Love reading your posts. Ever thought about starting your own thread like F&L? Would love to get your musings in one place. Sort of like a mini-blog.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I thought the 400 carry law had to do more with diminishing effectiveness the following year, not necessarily due to injury.

Right. It goes right along with the 5+ypc law, the 15+TD law, and the 80+receptions law.When looked at as populations, exceptional performances will always result in diminishing effectiveness the following year. That doesn't mean it's predictive.

Spot on CalBear, and the being predictive is what it is all about

 

[Tau837]

In 2005, Larry Johnson received an insane workload (not 370 carries, which is the usual cutoff point, but 261 carries in 9 games is INSANE). The following year, his ypc dropped by .9. In 2006, he received an even more ridiculous workload. The following year, his ypc dropped by an additional .8.You can talk about regression to the mean all you want, but falling from 5.2 ypc to 3.5 ypc in the span of two years *IS NOT REGRESSION TO THE MEAN*. That's regression to way, way, way below the mean. There has to be some sort of outside explanation for that.

You might want to consider some other factors besides workload. Like change in the OL, QB, and coaching staff and quality of run defenses faced. IMO these things collectively had much greater influence on the change in LJ's ypc than his workload.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think the premise that any RB can get injured on any carry is the main point. I don't buy the overworked theory, but I do but a possible motivation issue after a big year/contract, teams planning better and age as factors for decreased production. Of course the main factor of not likely from a % standpint to repeat a career year is also in the mix.

I thought it was interesting that everyone was predicting that Jacobs style of running would make it so that he couldn't take the pounding. While he did miss a few plays on some hard shoulder hits (other RB's get banged up on hits), his injuries had NOTHING to do with the workload as he got a hammy when leaping a player running wide and then hurt his knee when his own blocker backed into him just as he was cutting. Neither had one thing to do with taking a pounding.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Why? Because it does not fit the theory? A touch is a touch. The abuse you take catching the ball out of the backfield is the same, in fact LJ was injured on a pass play.

Not because it doesn't fit the theory... because it doesn't fit the DATA. The correlation coefficient between carries in year N and production in year N+1 is negative. The correlation coefficient between catches in year N and production in year N+1 is actually slightly POSITIVE, albeit very, very, very insignificantly minute.

SSOG, step back from the data and look at what you wrote. Just think about how illogical that is. No correlation to receptions but an "absolute" correlation to carries? C'mon.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Why? Because it does not fit the theory? A touch is a touch. The abuse you take catching the ball out of the backfield is the same, in fact LJ was injured on a pass play.

Not because it doesn't fit the theory... because it doesn't fit the DATA. The correlation coefficient between carries in year N and production in year N+1 is negative. The correlation coefficient between catches in year N and production in year N+1 is actually slightly POSITIVE, albeit very, very, very insignificantly minute.

SSOG, don't waste your time. This is one of the most emotional topics in fantasy fooball. You can stick the entire Football Prospectus article about 370 carries in front of those who don't believe and they won't change their opinion. They'll simply say it is bogus. Consider it one of your competitive advantages - you'll be (and I'll be) evaluating players with this rule in mind while others will not. It will have spared you LJ this year, SA the year before, Curtis Martin the year before that, ...You'll have to take pleasure out of the resulting success in your fantasy leagues and not out of converting Shark Pool readers about 370 carries.PLEASE keep on posting. Love reading your posts. Ever thought about starting your own thread like F&L? Would love to get your musings in one place. Sort of like a mini-blog.

Could there be other factors at play? I wonder if a RB leads the league in rushing whether more lineman leave as free agents because they paved the way and must be great OL? Could it be that a guy just has trouble repeating a career year (I know Peyton did and I would bet my house Brady will next year). Could it be that teams realize that they must figure out a way to stop a guy who crushed the league the year before and if one team found something during the offseason (much easier to do than during the season, everyone followed that trend (even something such as 75% of the time when a player is one on one he goes to his left), etc...I am not saying that the numbers do not suggest a drop off in performance after 400 carries, what i am saying is there is a lot at work so that it is very difficult for a guy to repeat a fantastic performance without help.

 

[Da Guru]

Why? Because it does not fit the theory? A touch is a touch. The abuse you take catching the ball out of the backfield is the same, in fact LJ was injured on a pass play.

Not because it doesn't fit the theory... because it doesn't fit the DATA. The correlation coefficient between carries in year N and production in year N+1 is negative. The correlation coefficient between catches in year N and production in year N+1 is actually slightly POSITIVE, albeit very, very, very insignificantly minute.

SSOG, don't waste your time. This is one of the most emotional topics in fantasy fooball. You can stick the entire Football Prospectus article about 370 carries in front of those who don't believe and they won't change their opinion. They'll simply say it is bogus. Consider it one of your competitive advantages - you'll be (and I'll be) evaluating players with this rule in mind while others will not. It will have spared you LJ this year, SA the year before, Curtis Martin the year before that, ...You'll have to take pleasure out of the resulting success in your fantasy leagues and not out of converting Shark Pool readers about 370 carries.PLEASE keep on posting. Love reading your posts. Ever thought about starting your own thread like F&L? Would love to get your musings in one place. Sort of like a mini-blog.

LT had 372 carries and 14 TDs one year, the next year he averaged almost 1 yard a carry more than the previous season and had 17 TDs.That is not counting the 60+ receptions he had those seasons.

 

[gheemony]

Why? Because it does not fit the theory? A touch is a touch. The abuse you take catching the ball out of the backfield is the same, in fact LJ was injured on a pass play.

Not because it doesn't fit the theory... because it doesn't fit the DATA. The correlation coefficient between carries in year N and production in year N+1 is negative. The correlation coefficient between catches in year N and production in year N+1 is actually slightly POSITIVE, albeit very, very, very insignificantly minute.

SSOG, don't waste your time. This is one of the most emotional topics in fantasy fooball. You can stick the entire Football Prospectus article about 370 carries in front of those who don't believe and they won't change their opinion. They'll simply say it is bogus. Consider it one of your competitive advantages - you'll be (and I'll be) evaluating players with this rule in mind while others will not. It will have spared you LJ this year, SA the year before, Curtis Martin the year before that, ...You'll have to take pleasure out of the resulting success in your fantasy leagues and not out of converting Shark Pool readers about 370 carries.PLEASE keep on posting. Love reading your posts. Ever thought about starting your own thread like F&L? Would love to get your musings in one place. Sort of like a mini-blog.

Could there be other factors at play? I wonder if a RB leads the league in rushing whether more lineman leave as free agents because they paved the way and must be great OL? Could it be that a guy just has trouble repeating a career year (I know Peyton did and I would bet my house Brady will next year). Could it be that teams realize that they must figure out a way to stop a guy who crushed the league the year before and if one team found something during the offseason (much easier to do than during the season, everyone followed that trend (even something such as 75% of the time when a player is one on one he goes to his left), etc...I am not saying that the numbers do not suggest a drop off in performance after 400 carries, what i am saying is there is a lot at work so that it is very difficult for a guy to repeat a fantastic performance without help.

There might be other factors, but how do you measure and quantify these factors? Statisticians can't measure "heart", "courage", "imending free agency", "great OL", and other intangibles. But they can measure carries, yards, yards per carry, touches, etc. The Football Outsiders article does a good job of analyzing many of these measurable stats and their correlation to future performance. Their conclusion is that carries make a difference. 370 is the "magic number" for regular season and 410 for regular season and playoffs. It's not a guarantee of declining performance. Look at Eric Dickerson. But you can point to Jamal Anderson, Curtis Martin, SA, and now LJ as backing up their theory (as well as others).I am not the expert and I won't try to convince you of the analysis, but I recommend reading the Football Outsiders article on the topic before drawing a conclusion. It even addresses the issue of carries vs. touches.Read it and draw your own conclusions. I did and I am squarely on their side. I've been thrilled with how it has helped me to succeed in fantasy football. I can directly point to FO and their analysis on this issue (as well as aging patterns for players) as the reason I avoided LJ this year, SA last year, and Curtis Martin the year before. In the future, I am sure that I will miss out on a player that doesn't fit the pattern (like Eric Dickerson), but I'll be happy with having been right more often than not.BTW, for those that don't believe in the "carry law" for football, do you also not believe the "pitch count laws" used in BB? The carries theory really builds on the pitch count work in baseball, and that has been very successful.I wonder if Cubs fans, who saw Mark Prior and Kerry Wood abused by Dusty Baker, are more likely to believe Football Outsiders. Dusty Baker probably had no problem with Herm Edwards abusing Curtis Martin and LJ.

 

[CalBear]

Why? Because it does not fit the theory? A touch is a touch. The abuse you take catching the ball out of the backfield is the same, in fact LJ was injured on a pass play.

Not because it doesn't fit the theory... because it doesn't fit the DATA. The correlation coefficient between carries in year N and production in year N+1 is negative. The correlation coefficient between catches in year N and production in year N+1 is actually slightly POSITIVE, albeit very, very, very insignificantly minute.

SSOG, don't waste your time. This is one of the most emotional topics in fantasy fooball. You can stick the entire Football Prospectus article about 370 carries in front of those who don't believe and they won't change their opinion. They'll simply say it is bogus. Consider it one of your competitive advantages - you'll be (and I'll be) evaluating players with this rule in mind while others will not. It will have spared you LJ this year, SA the year before, Curtis Martin the year before that, ...You'll have to take pleasure out of the resulting success in your fantasy leagues and not out of converting Shark Pool readers about 370 carries.

It also would have "spared" you LT this year. You could have taken Steven Jackson or Frank Gore at 1.01 instead--that would have worked out great!

 

[Da Guru]

Why? Because it does not fit the theory? A touch is a touch. The abuse you take catching the ball out of the backfield is the same, in fact LJ was injured on a pass play.

Not because it doesn't fit the theory... because it doesn't fit the DATA. The correlation coefficient between carries in year N and production in year N+1 is negative. The correlation coefficient between catches in year N and production in year N+1 is actually slightly POSITIVE, albeit very, very, very insignificantly minute.

SSOG, don't waste your time. This is one of the most emotional topics in fantasy fooball. You can stick the entire Football Prospectus article about 370 carries in front of those who don't believe and they won't change their opinion. They'll simply say it is bogus. Consider it one of your competitive advantages - you'll be (and I'll be) evaluating players with this rule in mind while others will not. It will have spared you LJ this year, SA the year before, Curtis Martin the year before that, ...You'll have to take pleasure out of the resulting success in your fantasy leagues and not out of converting Shark Pool readers about 370 carries.

It also would have "spared" you LT this year. You could have taken Steven Jackson or Frank Gore at 1.01 instead--that would have worked out great!

Or Fast Wille Parker.I think EVERYBODY expected LJ not to be able to repeat his previous two season due to the changes in the team.

 

[SSOG]

In 2005, Larry Johnson received an insane workload (not 370 carries, which is the usual cutoff point, but 261 carries in 9 games is INSANE). The following year, his ypc dropped by .9. In 2006, he received an even more ridiculous workload. The following year, his ypc dropped by an additional .8.You can talk about regression to the mean all you want, but falling from 5.2 ypc to 3.5 ypc in the span of two years *IS NOT REGRESSION TO THE MEAN*. That's regression to way, way, way below the mean. There has to be some sort of outside explanation for that.

Pro-Bowl caliber offensive lineman retiring may have something to do with why his ypc dropped.

Maybe, but elite, supremely talented RBs behind bad lines still average more than 3.5 ypc. Ask a KC homer if LJ looked like the same back this year as he did two years ago.

LT had 372 carries and 14 TDs one year, the next year he averaged almost 1 yard a carry more than the previous season and had 17 TDs.That is not counting the 60+ receptions he had those seasons.

Rich Gannon won the league MVP once. Would you argue with me if I said that QBs who are 37 and have been cut by multiple teams are extremely unlikely to win the league MVP, too?Yes, you can find exceptions. This is about spotting TRENDS, not getting it absolutely right every single time. If I'm faced with a situation 10 times, and trend analysis allows me to react appropriately 7 out of 10 times, I consider that a success, even if I did make a mistake three times.

Why? Because it does not fit the theory? A touch is a touch. The abuse you take catching the ball out of the backfield is the same, in fact LJ was injured on a pass play.

Not because it doesn't fit the theory... because it doesn't fit the DATA. The correlation coefficient between carries in year N and production in year N+1 is negative. The correlation coefficient between catches in year N and production in year N+1 is actually slightly POSITIVE, albeit very, very, very insignificantly minute.

SSOG, step back from the data and look at what you wrote. Just think about how illogical that is. No correlation to receptions but an "absolute" correlation to carries? C'mon.

I don't see how it's so illogical. Receptions are designed to get the RB the ball in space. When the RB has the ball in space, he's able to more adequately control what angles the hits are coming from. He can see the hits and brace better for them. He also has a chance to avoid the hits entirely. There's a lot less traffic, there's a lot less banging, there's a lot less wear and tear. I don't think there's any inherent contradiction in saying that receptions take less of a physical toll than carries.

 

[CalBear]

I don't see how it's so illogical. Receptions are designed to get the RB the ball in space. When the RB has the ball in space, he's able to more adequately control what angles the hits are coming from. He can see the hits and brace better for them. He also has a chance to avoid the hits entirely. There's a lot less traffic, there's a lot less banging, there's a lot less wear and tear. I don't think there's any inherent contradiction in saying that receptions take less of a physical toll than carries.

How would you explain this, then? RB reception leaders, 2000-2006:
Year RB Receptions leader Fantasy points Fantasy points (year N+1)2000 Faulk 375 3412001 Faulk 341 2092002 Garner 256 1182003 Tomlinson 344 2882004 Westbrook 206 1652005 Jordan 225 722006 Jackson 329 148 (projected) Average 297 192Since 2000, the RB with the most receptions has declined in fantasy scoring in year N+1, every single year. The average decline was 35%. Better stay away from those receiving running backs!The Football Outsiders study starts with an agenda, uses curve fitting to find an arbitrary number where the correlation becomes (very slightly) positive, and overstates the value of that correlation to make the point the authors wanted to make in the first place. Whether that's because the authors were being disingenuous, or because they really have no idea how to do a statistical study, I'm not sure. But you could use the same methods for any statistic and come up with the same results--given that you know the population is going to regress to the mean, you can always find an arbitrary point where that regression is the strongest, but that doesn't mean there's anything special about 370 carries or 50 receptions or 1500 yards, or whatever number you come up with; it just means that's what fits the curve best. And most assuredly, it does not mean that a specific RB who passed the arbitrary threshold you've just created is going to decline in year N+1.

The study is fallacy masquerading as analysis.

Edit to add: Every single one of these backs got injured for at least one game in year N+1.

 

[Da Guru]

In 2005, Larry Johnson received an insane workload (not 370 carries, which is the usual cutoff point, but 261 carries in 9 games is INSANE). The following year, his ypc dropped by .9. In 2006, he received an even more ridiculous workload. The following year, his ypc dropped by an additional .8.You can talk about regression to the mean all you want, but falling from 5.2 ypc to 3.5 ypc in the span of two years *IS NOT REGRESSION TO THE MEAN*. That's regression to way, way, way below the mean. There has to be some sort of outside explanation for that.

Pro-Bowl caliber offensive lineman retiring may have something to do with why his ypc dropped.

Maybe, but elite, supremely talented RBs behind bad lines still average more than 3.5 ypc. Ask a KC homer if LJ looked like the same back this year as he did two years ago.

LT had 372 carries and 14 TDs one year, the next year he averaged almost 1 yard a carry more than the previous season and had 17 TDs.That is not counting the 60+ receptions he had those seasons.

Rich Gannon won the league MVP once. Would you argue with me if I said that QBs who are 37 and have been cut by multiple teams are extremely unlikely to win the league MVP, too?Yes, you can find exceptions. This is about spotting TRENDS, not getting it absolutely right every single time. If I'm faced with a situation 10 times, and trend analysis allows me to react appropriately 7 out of 10 times, I consider that a success, even if I did make a mistake three times.

Why? Because it does not fit the theory? A touch is a touch. The abuse you take catching the ball out of the backfield is the same, in fact LJ was injured on a pass play.

Not because it doesn't fit the theory... because it doesn't fit the DATA. The correlation coefficient between carries in year N and production in year N+1 is negative. The correlation coefficient between catches in year N and production in year N+1 is actually slightly POSITIVE, albeit very, very, very insignificantly minute.

SSOG, step back from the data and look at what you wrote. Just think about how illogical that is. No correlation to receptions but an "absolute" correlation to carries? C'mon.

I don't see how it's so illogical. Receptions are designed to get the RB the ball in space. When the RB has the ball in space, he's able to more adequately control what angles the hits are coming from. He can see the hits and brace better for them. He also has a chance to avoid the hits entirely. There's a lot less traffic, there's a lot less banging, there's a lot less wear and tear. I don't think there's any inherent contradiction in saying that receptions take less of a physical toll than carries.

I disagree if you have over 50 receptions it will add up because when RBs catch passes they usually are getting chased from behind by LBs and linemen, and trying to be brought down by safeties from the front. LJ was injured being brought down on a pass play from behind. When you are tackled from behind it is much easier to have someone roll up on your ankle.

 

[Wadsworth]

In fantasy we rarely(if ever) make choices based on a single data point. For example, RBs over the age of 30 are historically more likely to disappoint. But you are making a mistake if you paint with a wide brush and dictate that you will never have a RB over the age of 30 on your roster. Rookie WRs rarely perform well, but taking that data and deciding you won't ever draft a rookie WR is guppy stuff. When ranking RBs before your draft, considering the number of carries the previous season is certainly reasonable. But the idea that if a RB had more than 370 carries the previous season I won't draft him no matter what is just plain silly. There are tons of things to consider when ranking fantasy players and sure, miles on the tires in the previous season might be one. But, it's one of many and thinking it's a pure and definitive rule is showing a total lack of understanding of both fantasy football and statistical analysis.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Why? Because it does not fit the theory? A touch is a touch. The abuse you take catching the ball out of the backfield is the same, in fact LJ was injured on a pass play.

Not because it doesn't fit the theory... because it doesn't fit the DATA. The correlation coefficient between carries in year N and production in year N+1 is negative. The correlation coefficient between catches in year N and production in year N+1 is actually slightly POSITIVE, albeit very, very, very insignificantly minute.

SSOG, don't waste your time. This is one of the most emotional topics in fantasy fooball. You can stick the entire Football Prospectus article about 370 carries in front of those who don't believe and they won't change their opinion. They'll simply say it is bogus. Consider it one of your competitive advantages - you'll be (and I'll be) evaluating players with this rule in mind while others will not. It will have spared you LJ this year, SA the year before, Curtis Martin the year before that, ...You'll have to take pleasure out of the resulting success in your fantasy leagues and not out of converting Shark Pool readers about 370 carries.PLEASE keep on posting. Love reading your posts. Ever thought about starting your own thread like F&L? Would love to get your musings in one place. Sort of like a mini-blog.

Could there be other factors at play? I wonder if a RB leads the league in rushing whether more lineman leave as free agents because they paved the way and must be great OL? Could it be that a guy just has trouble repeating a career year (I know Peyton did and I would bet my house Brady will next year). Could it be that teams realize that they must figure out a way to stop a guy who crushed the league the year before and if one team found something during the offseason (much easier to do than during the season, everyone followed that trend (even something such as 75% of the time when a player is one on one he goes to his left), etc...I am not saying that the numbers do not suggest a drop off in performance after 400 carries, what i am saying is there is a lot at work so that it is very difficult for a guy to repeat a fantastic performance without help.

There might be other factors, but how do you measure and quantify these factors? Statisticians can't measure "heart", "courage", "imending free agency", "great OL", and other intangibles. But they can measure carries, yards, yards per carry, touches, etc. The Football Outsiders article does a good job of analyzing many of these measurable stats and their correlation to future performance. Their conclusion is that carries make a difference. 370 is the "magic number" for regular season and 410 for regular season and playoffs. It's not a guarantee of declining performance. Look at Eric Dickerson. But you can point to Jamal Anderson, Curtis Martin, SA, and now LJ as backing up their theory (as well as others).I am not the expert and I won't try to convince you of the analysis, but I recommend reading the Football Outsiders article on the topic before drawing a conclusion. It even addresses the issue of carries vs. touches.Read it and draw your own conclusions. I did and I am squarely on their side. I've been thrilled with how it has helped me to succeed in fantasy football. I can directly point to FO and their analysis on this issue (as well as aging patterns for players) as the reason I avoided LJ this year, SA last year, and Curtis Martin the year before. In the future, I am sure that I will miss out on a player that doesn't fit the pattern (like Eric Dickerson), but I'll be happy with having been right more often than not.BTW, for those that don't believe in the "carry law" for football, do you also not believe the "pitch count laws" used in BB? The carries theory really builds on the pitch count work in baseball, and that has been very successful.I wonder if Cubs fans, who saw Mark Prior and Kerry Wood abused by Dusty Baker, are more likely to believe Football Outsiders. Dusty Baker probably had no problem with Herm Edwards abusing Curtis Martin and LJ.

Fair enough response...I have read the information and do not discard it. But, just because it can't be measured does not mean it is not important. For example, in baseball it is clear that the stats matter a lot more (meaning that they are more statistically valid) than in football. I say that because baseball is an individual match up game where their individual actions add up to a team total. Football is the ultimate team sport. Example, Do you think it is a coincidence that Minnesota has a great running attack (even with little passing threat) when they add a great lineman of Hutchinson to a pretty good line already? I don't think anyone would call Chester Taylor an above average back (no way he starts on 16 teams) yet his numbers are his career best...Point is that football stats have so many more factors built into the stats that they are naturally less valid. Last example, do you think LT is running any worse this year? I watch every one of his plays and he is still the same guy, but with Rivers regressing and the OL not as strong combined with norv teams are focusing even more on taking him out without fear of getting burned. Now if he had 400 carries last year (or 370 seems to be the line) people would point to that. However, he only had 348 so nobody is talking about it. In 2002 LT broke that 370 threshold for the only time in his career, but the next year he had his BEST year at 5.3 YPC. Could it be that being younger had some factor along with all the others previously mentioned?What I am saying is that it is wrong to dismiss the factors just because you can't measure them and there is a serious flaw to "assume" that receptions don't count towards touches but running plays do. I mean just looking at the stats showing that must raise your eyebrows for anyone looking at it objectively. If anything the RB's are more "open" to injuries because they can't see hits coming like they can when they are running the ball.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Why? Because it does not fit the theory? A touch is a touch. The abuse you take catching the ball out of the backfield is the same, in fact LJ was injured on a pass play.

Not because it doesn't fit the theory... because it doesn't fit the DATA. The correlation coefficient between carries in year N and production in year N+1 is negative. The correlation coefficient between catches in year N and production in year N+1 is actually slightly POSITIVE, albeit very, very, very insignificantly minute.

SSOG, don't waste your time. This is one of the most emotional topics in fantasy fooball. You can stick the entire Football Prospectus article about 370 carries in front of those who don't believe and they won't change their opinion. They'll simply say it is bogus. Consider it one of your competitive advantages - you'll be (and I'll be) evaluating players with this rule in mind while others will not. It will have spared you LJ this year, SA the year before, Curtis Martin the year before that, ...You'll have to take pleasure out of the resulting success in your fantasy leagues and not out of converting Shark Pool readers about 370 carries.PLEASE keep on posting. Love reading your posts. Ever thought about starting your own thread like F&L? Would love to get your musings in one place. Sort of like a mini-blog.

Could there be other factors at play? I wonder if a RB leads the league in rushing whether more lineman leave as free agents because they paved the way and must be great OL? Could it be that a guy just has trouble repeating a career year (I know Peyton did and I would bet my house Brady will next year). Could it be that teams realize that they must figure out a way to stop a guy who crushed the league the year before and if one team found something during the offseason (much easier to do than during the season, everyone followed that trend (even something such as 75% of the time when a player is one on one he goes to his left), etc...I am not saying that the numbers do not suggest a drop off in performance after 400 carries, what i am saying is there is a lot at work so that it is very difficult for a guy to repeat a fantastic performance without help.

There might be other factors, but how do you measure and quantify these factors? Statisticians can't measure "heart", "courage", "imending free agency", "great OL", and other intangibles. But they can measure carries, yards, yards per carry, touches, etc. The Football Outsiders article does a good job of analyzing many of these measurable stats and their correlation to future performance. Their conclusion is that carries make a difference. 370 is the "magic number" for regular season and 410 for regular season and playoffs. It's not a guarantee of declining performance. Look at Eric Dickerson. But you can point to Jamal Anderson, Curtis Martin, SA, and now LJ as backing up their theory (as well as others).I am not the expert and I won't try to convince you of the analysis, but I recommend reading the Football Outsiders article on the topic before drawing a conclusion. It even addresses the issue of carries vs. touches.Read it and draw your own conclusions. I did and I am squarely on their side. I've been thrilled with how it has helped me to succeed in fantasy football. I can directly point to FO and their analysis on this issue (as well as aging patterns for players) as the reason I avoided LJ this year, SA last year, and Curtis Martin the year before. In the future, I am sure that I will miss out on a player that doesn't fit the pattern (like Eric Dickerson), but I'll be happy with having been right more often than not.BTW, for those that don't believe in the "carry law" for football, do you also not believe the "pitch count laws" used in BB? The carries theory really builds on the pitch count work in baseball, and that has been very successful.I wonder if Cubs fans, who saw Mark Prior and Kerry Wood abused by Dusty Baker, are more likely to believe Football Outsiders. Dusty Baker probably had no problem with Herm Edwards abusing Curtis Martin and LJ.

BTW, I am a believer in pitch counts, but again they need to be taken into some context. For example, I would worry more about younger guys and I would also worry more about pitch counts over a certain amount over a games or a series of games. For example, it is a lot worse to have a pitcher throw 130 pitches for 6 straight starts and then throw 70 pitches for 6 straight starts than a guy throwing 100 pitches for 12 straight games.Baker did abuse Wood and Prior

 

[Liquid Tension]

I don't see how it's so illogical. Receptions are designed to get the RB the ball in space. When the RB has the ball in space, he's able to more adequately control what angles the hits are coming from. He can see the hits and brace better for them. He also has a chance to avoid the hits entirely. There's a lot less traffic, there's a lot less banging, there's a lot less wear and tear. I don't think there's any inherent contradiction in saying that receptions take less of a physical toll than carries.

I don't agree with this as you must catch a ball and then focus on the bodies flying at you. From the RB position you can much easier identify where hits are coming from and control where you go... While being in space is the plan it does not always work that way. I think for the most part a touch is a touch, but if you want to argue that for every carry that is the equivalent to 1.6 receptions I could buy that, but to dismiss it in its entirety is ludicrous.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I don't see how it's so illogical. Receptions are designed to get the RB the ball in space. When the RB has the ball in space, he's able to more adequately control what angles the hits are coming from. He can see the hits and brace better for them. He also has a chance to avoid the hits entirely. There's a lot less traffic, there's a lot less banging, there's a lot less wear and tear. I don't think there's any inherent contradiction in saying that receptions take less of a physical toll than carries.

How would you explain this, then? RB reception leaders, 2000-2006:
Year RB Receptions leader Fantasy points Fantasy points (year N+1)2000 Faulk 375 3412001 Faulk 341 2092002 Garner 256 1182003 Tomlinson 344 2882004 Westbrook 206 1652005 Jordan 225 722006 Jackson 329 148 (projected) Average 297 192Since 2000, the RB with the most receptions has declined in fantasy scoring in year N+1, every single year. The average decline was 35%. Better stay away from those receiving running backs!The Football Outsiders study starts with an agenda, uses curve fitting to find an arbitrary number where the correlation becomes (very slightly) positive, and overstates the value of that correlation to make the point the authors wanted to make in the first place. Whether that's because the authors were being disingenuous, or because they really have no idea how to do a statistical study, I'm not sure. But you could use the same methods for any statistic and come up with the same results--given that you know the population is going to regress to the mean, you can always find an arbitrary point where that regression is the strongest, but that doesn't mean there's anything special about 370 carries or 50 receptions or 1500 yards, or whatever number you come up with; it just means that's what fits the curve best. And most assuredly, it does not mean that a specific RB who passed the arbitrary threshold you've just created is going to decline in year N+1.

The study is fallacy masquerading as analysis.

Edit to add: Every single one of these backs got injured for at least one game in year N+1.

Great post!BTW, SSOG made a point that if the data tells you that 70% of the time something is will happen that has validity, but what I question is whether that 70% is derived only from a regression to the mean. Da Guru pointed out that everyone knew LJ would not be as good this year but that had nothing to do with workload IMO.

 

[komments]

Last example, do you think LT is running any worse this year? I watch every one of his plays and he is still the same guy, but with Rivers regressing and the OL not as strong combined with norv teams are focusing even more on taking him out without fear of getting burned. Now if he had 400 carries last year (or 370 seems to be the line) people would point to that. However, he only had 348 so nobody is talking about it. In 2002 LT broke that 370 threshold for the only time in his career, but the next year he had his BEST year at 5.3 YPC. Could it be that being younger had some factor along with all the others previously mentioned?

What I am saying is that it is wrong to dismiss the factors just because you can't measure them and there is a serious flaw to "assume" that receptions don't count towards touches but running plays do. I mean just looking at the stats showing that must raise your eyebrows for anyone looking at it objectively. If anything the RB's are more "open" to injuries because they can't see hits coming like they can when they are running the ball.

First, I have not read the FO article so I can't comment on it directly but what I am taking from this discussion is that they recommend avoiding RBs that had 370+ carries the year before. Yes, that is probably a simplistic look at the article and there are probably other defining points but that is what I am seeing from this discussion.My thought is that ALL players have some value and if they drop to the proper point they should ALL be considered. Personally I would take LT with the first overall pick every year regardless of whether he had 320 or 400 carries. Because he has proven himself to be able to consistently rank in the top 10 players regardless of position. That doesn't mean he will end up there every year - just that his risk coefficient is lower than many players.

This year has been a strange one for most of the top RBs. I don't think anyone could have foreseen the type of year that Adrian Peterson is having. I expected SD to drop but not the way they have. Traditionally RBs are the most predictable of all Fantasy positions. This year is an aberration. Just as 1995 was for QB and WR scoring. These happen. And there is no sure way to predict anything in this hobby. Two years ago everyone thought Brett Favre was done. This year he is leading one of my teams toward an undefeated season. I have been playing this game since 1988 and I have never had an undefeated season so this is pretty rarified air for me.

Age does matter. So do circumstances like OL, Coaching Changes, surrounding talent, etc etc etc.

But very little of it is totally predictable. Injuries happen to durable players (Jerry Rice, Barry Sanders). Offensive lines that are supposed to be terrible turn out to be great (San Diego last year). The closest I have come to seeing anything is predictable is to follow coaches. Herm Edwards kills offenses - so does Marc Trestman. When those two guys are involved I tend to stay away.

I believe a lot of carries will hurt the RB the next year. I also believe that a lot of carries for a QB results in a down performance the following year. I studied that a couple years ago when I was with Fantasy Asylum (when FA still existed) and was scoffed at for predicting a down year for Michael Vick. I could have been wrong - predictions are not foreknowledge. But in that case I wasn't - the preponderance of historical record shows that the QB that leads the league in rushing in year N either suffers and injury or a drop (major) in performance in year N+1. I thought Steve Young might have bucked that trend but when I did the study he did not.

Too many carries gets people hurt. It shortens careers. The same can be said for running styles. While I was with FOXSports.com, I read an article about big backs (240+ lbs). Only one big back has had more than two years over 1000 yards rushing. Christian Okoye didn't do it. None of today's big backs has done it. Only Jerome Bettis managed this feat.

Why is that? The article didn't say. My guess is a combination of running style that produces wear and tear and of defenses closing down gaps inside and not worrying about outside runs. Bettis was unusual in that he had extremely quick feet for his entire career. He made up for a lack of top end speed with a combination of extreme quickness and power.

 

[Da Guru]

I don't see how it's so illogical. Receptions are designed to get the RB the ball in space. When the RB has the ball in space, he's able to more adequately control what angles the hits are coming from. He can see the hits and brace better for them. He also has a chance to avoid the hits entirely. There's a lot less traffic, there's a lot less banging, there's a lot less wear and tear. I don't think there's any inherent contradiction in saying that receptions take less of a physical toll than carries.

How would you explain this, then? RB reception leaders, 2000-2006:
Year RB Receptions leader Fantasy points Fantasy points (year N+1)2000 Faulk 375 3412001 Faulk 341 2092002 Garner 256 1182003 Tomlinson 344 2882004 Westbrook 206 1652005 Jordan 225 722006 Jackson 329 148 (projected) Average 297 192Since 2000, the RB with the most receptions has declined in fantasy scoring in year N+1, every single year. The average decline was 35%. Better stay away from those receiving running backs!The Football Outsiders study starts with an agenda, uses curve fitting to find an arbitrary number where the correlation becomes (very slightly) positive, and overstates the value of that correlation to make the point the authors wanted to make in the first place. Whether that's because the authors were being disingenuous, or because they really have no idea how to do a statistical study, I'm not sure. But you could use the same methods for any statistic and come up with the same results--given that you know the population is going to regress to the mean, you can always find an arbitrary point where that regression is the strongest, but that doesn't mean there's anything special about 370 carries or 50 receptions or 1500 yards, or whatever number you come up with; it just means that's what fits the curve best. And most assuredly, it does not mean that a specific RB who passed the arbitrary threshold you've just created is going to decline in year N+1.

The study is fallacy masquerading as analysis.

Edit to add: Every single one of these backs got injured for at least one game in year N+1.

Great post!BTW, SSOG made a point that if the data tells you that 70% of the time something is will happen that has validity, but what I question is whether that 70% is derived only from a regression to the mean. Da Guru pointed out that everyone knew LJ would not be as good this year but that had nothing to do with workload IMO.

I think every FF player worth their salt had some concerns about LJ coming into the season. My concerns personally had nothing at all to do with the 400 carries. My concerns were the o-line lost 2 Pro-Bowl players, bad QB play, bad WRs, and a weaker defense. Add all of those up and LJs numbers were going to be down.LJ is 27 not 32. Curtis Martin had a career year when everyone thought he was done. I stayed away from Martin the next year only because of his age.

Any player that has a career year in the NFL will have a tough time repeating regardless of age.

In LJs case had he not been hurt he still could have ended up a top 5 RB even with the poor start. When you draft a guy #3 or 4 that is all you can ask for.

 

[SSOG]

Great post!BTW, SSOG made a point that if the data tells you that 70% of the time something is will happen that has validity, but what I question is whether that 70% is derived only from a regression to the mean. Da Guru pointed out that everyone knew LJ would not be as good this year but that had nothing to do with workload IMO.

No, I don't think it's simple regression to the mean, given that they are regressing MORE and MORE OFTEN than other RBs with comparable production but lighter workloads.27 RBs have had 370 carries in a single season. If we assume that Larry Johnson is shut down for the year, here's the profile of the average 370 carry season.The average 370 carry season is posted by a 25.9 year old RB with 4.6 years of NFL experience. He plays in 15.8 games, on average, and gets 386 carries for 1733 yards, which is a 4.49 ypc clip. They score 14.7 TDs, giving them 261.3 fantasy points.The average year after a 370 carry season is posted by a 26.9 year old RB with 5.6 years of NFL experience. He plays in 11.9 games, on average, and gets 249 carries (a 36% reduction) for 1008 yards (a 42% reduction), which is a 3.83 clip (a .66 ypc drop). They score 7.1 TDs (52% reduction), giving them 143.3 fantasy points (45% reduction). Generally speaking, in order to be a viable RB2, a back needs to score 150 fantasy points. Those 27 backs reached the 150 point threshold 11 times in 27 attempts (40% of the time). In order to be a viable RB1, a back generally needs to score 200 fantasy points. Those 27 backs reached the 200 point threshold 5 times in 27 attempts (19%).Now, if this is just simple regression to the mean, other populations will show similar regression. Maybe if I have time later tonight, I'll profile the average season by 25.9 year old RBs, the average season by RBs who play in 15.8 games, the average season by 1700+ yard RBs, the average season by 4.5 ypc RBs, or the average season by 261 point RBs. In the meantime, let's do some predictions- do you honestly believe we'll see the same level and consistency of regression?

 

[CalBear]

Now, if this is just simple regression to the mean, other populations will show similar regression. Maybe if I have time later tonight, I'll profile the average season by 25.9 year old RBs, the average season by RBs who play in 15.8 games, the average season by 1700+ yard RBs, the average season by 4.5 ypc RBs, or the average season by 261 point RBs. In the meantime, let's do some predictions- do you honestly believe we'll see the same level and consistency of regression?

I am certain you'll see similar regression among 1700+ yard RBs and 261 point RBs. 4.5 ypc is not particularly exceptional, so I would expect to see less regression there, and 25.9 years old isn't exceptional at all, so I don't expect to see much regression if any. 15.8 games played is definitely exceptional and probably will have significant regression.The point that you and Football Outsiders don't seem to be getting is that the important thing is how exceptional the population is. Considering that 370 regular-season carries has been achieved only 27 times since 1960, it's safe to say that it is an extremely exceptional event; at least two and probably three standard deviations above the mean. If you really want to do a study on regression to the mean, you need to figure out how much yardage is three standard deviations above the mean, and how much ypc, and how many fantasy points, and how much age, and then see how those populations regress. I guarantee that if you look at yardage three standard deviations above the mean for a reasonable definition of the RB population, that the population will have regression to the mean that is similar to the 370-carry population, within the margin of error.

 

[SSOG]

Now, if this is just simple regression to the mean, other populations will show similar regression. Maybe if I have time later tonight, I'll profile the average season by 25.9 year old RBs, the average season by RBs who play in 15.8 games, the average season by 1700+ yard RBs, the average season by 4.5 ypc RBs, or the average season by 261 point RBs. In the meantime, let's do some predictions- do you honestly believe we'll see the same level and consistency of regression?

I am certain you'll see similar regression among 1700+ yard RBs and 261 point RBs. 4.5 ypc is not particularly exceptional, so I would expect to see less regression there, and 25.9 years old isn't exceptional at all, so I don't expect to see much regression if any. 15.8 games played is definitely exceptional and probably will have significant regression.The point that you and Football Outsiders don't seem to be getting is that the important thing is how exceptional the population is. Considering that 370 regular-season carries has been achieved only 27 times since 1960, it's safe to say that it is an extremely exceptional event; at least two and probably three standard deviations above the mean. If you really want to do a study on regression to the mean, you need to figure out how much yardage is three standard deviations above the mean, and how much ypc, and how many fantasy points, and how much age, and then see how those populations regress. I guarantee that if you look at yardage three standard deviations above the mean for a reasonable definition of the RB population, that the population will have regression to the mean that is similar to the 370-carry population, within the margin of error.

The CARRIES might be 2-3 standard deviations above the mean, and I do expect a dramatic decline in carries, but that's not what I really mean when I talk about RBs breaking down after a 370 carry season. I'm mostly referring to the dramatically increased injury rate and the dramatic drop in ypc. As you said, 4.5 ypc is not an exceptional or unsustainable value, especially for RBs in such an elite tier as those 370-carry RBs all are. Seeing that plummet by .66 in year N+1 says pretty clearly to me that something is going on. Those RBs simply are not as effective PER CARRY in year N+1, saying nothing at all about the number of carries. I would not expect a similar decline among 1700 RBs, but I could always be surprised.The following backs all had 370 carries in a season: Larry Johnson, Shaun Alexander, Curtis Martin, Ricky Williams, Jamal Lewis, LaDanian Tomlinson, Eddie George, Edgerrin James, Jamal Anderson, Terrell Davis, Jerome Bettis, Emmitt Smith, Christian Okoye, Eric Dickerson, Gerald Riggs, Marcus Allen, James Wilder, Walter Payton, John Riggins, George Rogers, and Earl Campbell. I don't know about you, but I read that as a veritable "who's who" list of stud RBs. I mean, those guys are AMAZING talents, some of the best the game of football has ever seen. Those guys also combined to average 3.83 yards per carry in year N+1. THREE POINT EIGHT THREE. To put that into perspective, that's right around the career ypc average of Ron Dayne. What other possible explanation could you have for such an amazing cast of players becoming Ron Dayne in year N+1 if not workload?

As far as 15.8 games played being exceptional and having significant regression... check out this study. It's several years old by now, but it says that RBs who play 16 games in year N play 13.7 games, on average, in year N+1. Add 370 carries into the mix and that falls to 11.9 games. I'd venture that that's a significant decline, which means that 370 carries does, in fact, make an RB more likely to miss time the following year. If you want, I can look up the average number of games played per season by those RBs and see by how much it exceeds 11.9, but somehow I suspect that even that wouldn't convince you that something was going on here.

 

[mrgerty]

Spurious correlations. It's like saying hot temperature outside makes more murders happen. Facts are that more crime takes place when it is hotter outside, but there are many factors are in play there. To take one aspect of any study without considering the other variables and proclaim it the gospel is foolish. The footballoutsiders study presents an interesting argument, but you can't say with any level of certainty (they don't) that 377 carries is the only, or even the most important reason for a significant drop off in performance. It is one more tool to carry with you when evaluating for the next season along with all the other factors others have mentioned.