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

[Liquid Tension]

I thought it would make sense to summarize some of the points because this is all about fantasy production...of course this will be from my own biased perspective (but with an open mind).

First, as all my earlier posts pointed out, my support is in the corner of CalBear (and some others) as I do believe you can create a threshold point that fits the agenda and I think the 370 mark is exactly just that.

1) SSOG stated that there is zero correlation to receptions having any impact on the production/injuries and therefore, all receptions have been ignored in the discussions. This is a huge flaw as far as I am concerned as the receptions are touches and while it is possible they are less "harmful" than traditional carries, the RB's are sometimes extended reaching for a throw or RB's are looking at the ball without knowing where hits are coming from as they catch the ball. Now compare this to a RB who always has his eyes on the players coming at him and make your own determination...Overall it may be a little less wear and tear, but to dismiss 50 touches/receptions is absurd and a major flaw in the analysis. Perhaps a % of receptions (such as 66%) would go towards a number you are looking for (if you must have a number)

2) I do think ignoring sample data done correctly telling you that something is 70% likely to happen can be shortsighted though. What I mean is that when you are putting forth your own projections or rankings a RB having a huge carry (and reception) load might weigh into a tie breaker situation for me. However, the more important items to look at for me would be the changes to the team around the player. For example, it is very possible that after a record breaking year the lineman get more credit than they have in the past and one of them could leave as a free agent; this happens all the time. It is also very possible that teams in their division realize the force "Larry Johnson" is and they draft some run stuffing pigs to stop getting worn down. The outside factors are more of a factor than the work load IMO.

3) Normal regression to the mean. We see it EVERY year, people ranking a guy way higher than he should be because of the previous great year. Anybody want to bet me Tom Brady does worse next year even if he plays every game? When you take RB's into the equation the injury risk is greater so the regression to the mean makes more sense because the odds of playing 16 games "again" are probably not very likely; in general the odds are not very good anyway. The aberration might have been that "Larry Johnson" played in all 16 games when he led the league

4) The bottom line for all of us is how does this impact our drafts for fantasy...I have argued the point of taking Peyton Manning in the 1st round for 3-4 years on this board and have been on the receiving end of a lot of abuse (some people defend the point), but with injuries to RB's having a guaranteed really good player (and sometimes great player) is a great 1st round pick. I have NEVER regretted taking Manning and I have said depending on the year that I would have taken Manning from the 3rd spot to the 8th spot every year. FWIW, LT was always before Manning. I would expect Brady moves into the 1st round now and rightfully so, but remember you should not expect him to repeat his performance.

Use all the information you have to make educated decisions and in my view the workload argument should only be used when as just one more item that goes into the evaluation, just like age, changes to the players team, the opposing teams, schedule, coaching changes, etc...

Good discussion all.

Edited to chang a few comments to make them more clear

 

[Liquid Tension]

There are a few problems here. First, when you have a tiny data set like 10 RBs, you can't discard a data point (Dickerson) just because it disagrees with your premise. Second, you're discarding receptions for no logical reason other than that they make the data even less significant. Third, you will also see the same career-decline issues with any exemplary RB population, not just a high-carry RB population; look at the #1 fantasy RBs, or RBs over 300 fantasy points for example.

Tomlinson had 372 carries and 79 receptions in 2002; he followed that up with 313 carries and 100 receptions in 2003. Was that a good time to sell high?

How could I have discarded Dickerson when he is clearly included in the data? He is part of the data that had at least 1 more top 10 season. He is an outlier in that he was the ONLY RB to have more than ONE top 10 season left in his career after a 390 carry season. To say that I "discarded" his data is disingenuous.Your note about LT2 shows that you didn't even read my post. It clearly states that I am only applying this to 390 or more carries. What is significant in my summary is that 50% of the RB's that had a 390 carry season only had 1 more top 10 fantasy season left in their ENTIRE CAREER. Please show me any data that shows a similar decline based on being the #1 fantasy RB. This is all about the carries. And no, a reception is NOT the same thing as a carry. In my opinion a reception is worth 0.1*carry in terms of wear on a RB.

Look, I know the sample size I used is small. I know it does not have any predictive capability. I am merely adding to the discussion by looking at past history.

You don't really believe that 100 receptions over the year is the equivalent to only 10 additional carries, do you?

 

[Liquid Tension]

I would bet that receptions are not ultimately "free" when it comes to figuring workload, but I also highly doubt they are identical.

Well, doesn't that mean that the obvious solution is to account for receptions but not treat them as being equal to rushing attempts? Yet I don't believe you or anyone else who has provided analysis on this have done that.

The question is how to account for receptions. Different offenses use backs in different ways. Different backs have different talents and are used in different ways in the passing game. If a back is matched up against a LB on most passing plays, it is different than if a DB covers him. I think the key stat shown in this debate was the week one data set that showed DL touches and multiple player hits. Though there is one more thing that isn't accounted for - how many times was a player hit, but not tackled (and was it a hit or a glancing blow) because that also adds to wear and tear. How many hits did a player take on a play that ultimately didn't count due to penalty. How many times did a RB have to block a DL during a passing play?These things may all even out which would explain why those backs that top 25 carries a game tend to wear down. Backs that don't catch passes and are still on the field may be taking as much, or more, punishment because they are used in the blocking scheme. There is a reason NFL teams are going to two back systems - they want to keep their primary guy healthy. I bet they have crunched these same numbers in much greater detail than we have. It would be nice if an insider could ask that of a team and see how they respond.

These are other good factors. I would agree that stats showing how many hard hits a RB has taken and how many normal blows a RB has taken would be just as valuable as carries/touches. Sometimes the glancing blows are the ones that cause the minor dings and soreness that can lead to wearing down. Better give stats inc. a call...

 

[JKL]

I would bet that receptions are not ultimately "free" when it comes to figuring workload, but I also highly doubt they are identical.

Well, doesn't that mean that the obvious solution is to account for receptions but not treat them as being equal to rushing attempts? Yet I don't believe you or anyone else who has provided analysis on this have done that.

I may look into this issue at some point and post something on it in the future, just not today or this month. I'm certainly not suggesting that the research is complete at this point. I have no doubt that some of what I have written will turn out to be incomplete or inaccurate as time passes, and that we can always learn more.

 

[JKL]

I thought it would make sense to summarize some of the points because this is all about fantasy production...of course this will be from my own biased perspective (but with an open mind).

First, as all my earlier posts pointed out, my support is in the corner of CalBear (and some others) as I do believe you can create a threshold point that fits the agenda and I think the 370 mark is exactly just that.

1) SSOG stated that there is zero correlation to receptions having any impact on the production/injuries and therefore, all receptions have been ignored in the discussions. This is a huge flaw as far as I am concerned as the receptions are touches and while it is possible they are less "harmful" than traditional carries, the RB's are sometimes extended reaching for a throw or RB's are looking at the ball without knowing where hits are coming from as they catch the ball. Now compare this to a RB who always has his eyes on the players coming at him and make your own determination...Overall it may be a little less wear and tear, but to dismiss 50 touches/receptions is absurd and a major flaw in the analysis. Perhaps a % of receptions (such as 66%) would go towards a number you are looking for (if you must have a number)

2) I do think ignoring sample data done correctly telling you that something is 70% likely to happen can be shortsighted though. What I mean is that when you are putting forth your own projections or rankings a RB having a huge carry (and reception) load might weigh into a tie breaker situation for me. However, the more important items to look at for me would be the changes to the team around the player. For example, it is very possible that after a record breaking year the lineman get more credit than they have in the past and one of them could leave as a free agent; this happens all the time. It is also very possible that teams in their division realize the force "Larry Johnson" is and they draft some run stuffing pigs to stop getting worn down. The outside factors are more of a factor than the work load IMO.

3) Normal regression to the mean. We see it EVERY year, people ranking a guy way higher than he should be because of the previous great year. Anybody want to bet me Tom Brady does worse next year even if he plays every game? When you take RB's into the equation the injury risk is greater so the regression to the mean makes more sense because the odds of playing 16 games "again" are probably not very likely; in general the odds are not very good anyway. The aberration might have been that "Larry Johnson" played in all 16 games when he led the league

4) The bottom line for all of us is how does this impact our drafts for fantasy...I have argued the point of taking Peyton Manning in the 1st round for 3-4 years on this board and have been on the receiving end of a lot of abuse (some people defend the point), but with injuries to RB's having a guaranteed really good player (and sometimes great player) is a great 1st round pick. I have NEVER regretted taking Manning and I have said depending on the year that I would have taken Manning from the 3rd spot to the 8th spot every year. FWIW, LT was always before Manning. I would expect Brady moves into the 1st round now and rightfully so, but remember you should not expect him to repeat his performance.

Use all the information you have to make educated decisions and in my view the workload argument should only be used when as just one more item that goes into the evaluation, just like age, changes to the players team, the opposing teams, schedule, coaching changes, etc...

Good discussion all.

Edited to chang a few comments to make them more clear

I can agree with this. And turning it back to fantasy football, t's a tool for risk assessment. If you're going to demand 95% confidence that it is true, well, that may be to high a standard to make decisions in fantasy football. People should also not view it as a "I will not draft that guy" situation. From my research (sorry if this sounds like Yogi Berra), MOST running backs survive MOST games without serious injury, even those with high rushing attempt totals. The rates of injury for backs with recent high work games are just higher than the general population of starting backs. I listed Steven Jackson as an early 2007 injury concern based on end of 2006 work rate. However, the odds were more likely than not that Steven Jackson, or Rudi Johnson, or Shaun Alexander, or Larry Johnson, or Ladell Betts would get through the early part of 2007 without a serious injury. I still had Jackson in my top 3. I did drop LJ and SA well outside my top 10 for the workload plus other reasons, I had Portis significantly higher as a bounceback candidate than most who were afraid Betts would get at least half the carries, and I had the Cincinnati backup (first Irons, then Watson) as a good low risk value play in 2007. But there were other reasons not to like LJ, SA, Betts, and Rudi at their ADP besides injury risk.I wouldn't avoid drafting a stud who projects well except for potential increased injury risk. If I have two guys I think can go for 250+ fantasy points, I'm going with the one I think is less of a risk. But I'm taking the higher risk guy who can go for 250+ over the guy who has a ceiling of 200.

Going a little of point, there is an area, in fact, where my research suggests you can get value by going after the past high workload guys. If you look at my chart in the second post, the high workload guys at the end of one season who survive the early part of the next tend to stay healthier over the course of the remainder of the season. If there is a perception that a guy is a risk because of high mileage, but he gets through the immediate games after high carry games without evidence of injury, he could be a value play as a buy option.

 

[CalBear]

The issue is NOT with the #1 fantasy scorer. So... more power to you!

The issue (as I see it) is with the leagues leader in carries.

That was a strawman, yes?You argued something with me - not even being dicussed by me.

I'm pointing out that your "logic" is fallacious; any exemplary population will show similar behavior in year N+1. There's no predictive value to your list.

Actually if any exemplary population will show similar behavior I would have to say that is VERY predictive.

Predictive of what? It's predictive that the class will decline in production; it's not predictive that any individual will decline in production.

 

[FantasyTrader]

The issue is NOT with the #1 fantasy scorer. So... more power to you!

The issue (as I see it) is with the leagues leader in carries.

That was a strawman, yes?You argued something with me - not even being dicussed by me.

I'm pointing out that your "logic" is fallacious; any exemplary population will show similar behavior in year N+1. There's no predictive value to your list.

Actually if any exemplary population will show similar behavior I would have to say that is VERY predictive.

Predictive of what? It's predictive that the class will decline in production; it's not predictive that any individual will decline in production.

It's predictive that the individual is at an unknown degree of risk to decline in production - as he is part of the class.

 

[CalBear]

Actually if any exemplary population will show similar behavior I would have to say that is VERY predictive.

Predictive of what? It's predictive that the class will decline in production; it's not predictive that any individual will decline in production.

It's predictive that the individual is at an unknown degree of risk to decline in production - as he is part of the class.

Right, but that's tautological. All exemplary populations will decline, so anyone who's in an exemplary population is at risk of decline. So what? It's better to be in an exemplary population with a risk of decline, than in a mediocre population. Mediocre populations decline, too.To make it concrete, let's say we're able to calculate that there's a 70% chance that Tomlinson will finish outside the top 3 in 2008. (I think that's a reasonable guess). That stat in isolation is meaningless; the question isn't really what LT's chance of finishing in the top 3, the question is what is LT's chance of finishing in the top 3 relative to the rest of the pack. When you think about Westbrook, Parker, Lewis, Portis, Addai--all of those guys are starting at a lower point, and are probably just as likely to decline as Tomlinson. Westbrook finished the season as the #2 RB; I'd be willing to bet that his chances of finishing in the top 3 in 2008 are 20% or lower, maybe half of Tomlinson's. I don't think any of the other guys are any better. So the fact that Tomlinson was #2 in RB workload in 2008 (or #1 if you include receptions), and is #1 in RB workload over the past two, three, four, five, six, and seven year periods, doesn't mean that his chance of repeating in the top 3 is any lower than anyone else's.

I will pull out one counter-example to illustrate a point: Adrian Peterson. Peterson didn't have a huge workload in 2007, yet finished as #3 overall. One could argue that Peterson is at least as likely as Tomlinson to finish in the top 3; certainly if you're a workload-worrier you would argue that. But Peterson belongs to a different exemplary class; 200+ carry RBs with ypc over 5.5. Only 10 RBs have done that in history; every one of them scored over 200 fantasy points, and four of the 10 scored over 300. Included in that class are some of the greatest RB seasons of all time.

Guess what happened in year N+1?

 

[puckalicious]

You don't really believe that 100 receptions over the year is the equivalent to only 10 additional carries, do you?

No. I was exaggerating to be sure. But the relationship is much closer to 0.1, than 1:1 in my opinion.

 

[Q-Bert]

All exemplary populations will decline, so anyone who's in an exemplary population is at risk of decline. So what? It's better to be in an exemplary population with a risk of decline, than in a mediocre population. Mediocre populations decline, too.

Quite possibly my favorite point in the whole thread.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Reasons for this happening are irrelevant, but facts are facts.

Actually the reasons for this happening are completely relevant.I have a better chance of getting struck by lightening that getting attacked by a shark. But I live in Kentucky where we have occasional lightning but zero sharks (real ones as compared to fantasy football sharks). I'd say if I go swimming in the ocean on a sunny day, the opposite is true. If I go swimming in the ocean on a stormy day, the former becomes true although murky water conditions seem to increase the odds of shark attack so they odds may actually equalize.This 400 carry rule is akin to saying don't go outside if you don't want to get struck by lightning or don't go swimming (anywhere) if you don't want to get attacked by a shark. There is an underlying reason for the correlation between 400 carries and sub-par follow-up years.I tend to think a 400 carry season is more likely to be a "career" year which by definition means it's less likely to be repeated just because player ability peaked simultaneously with a peak of surrounding talent to achieve that performance level.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

bottom line is RBs with huge #s tend to be overvalued the next year (few exceptions, LT, SA for a couple years, etc). So, who really cares about the exact statistical accuracy, when all that matters is approximate trends and perceived value within your league(s)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

bottom line is RBs with huge #s tend to be overvalued the next year (few exceptions, LT, SA for a couple years, etc). So, who really cares about the exact statistical accuracy, when all that matters is approximate trends and perceived value within your league(s)

Everybody who is drafted high tends to be overrated. If you're drafted in the top three or four spots, you're a lot more likely to underperform your draft position than to outperform it. If you're drafted number one, you're almost certain to underperform it.That's not an argument for avoiding guys who are drafted high. On average, they are the best players.

 

[AB in DC]

But the bigger issue is that I'm looking at two stats, not one. You say that the top 2% in any stat will decline, but I'm taking at the top 2% in carries, and looking at the change in yards per carry (or injury status). Yes, the number of carries will certainly go down over the next two years, but the YPC might not. And if it does, it might go down more or less than for RBs with a lighter workload (say, 300-350 carries) but comparable YPC.

I'll leave the number crunching to those with a lot more time than I do, but looking at the correlation between carries and YPC is far from meaningless. The FO studies are flawed, yes, but I think they're onto something, even if it hasn't been proven at a 95% confidence level.

If you look at the top 2% in rushing yards, you'll see a decline in rushing yards per carry the next year.If you look at the top 2% in passing yards, you'll see a decline in passing yards per attempt the next year.

Of course.But that's not what I was saying.