Which career is better? (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

Assumptions: Ignore or consider equal, receiving yards and rushing TDs. You can have either of the following two RBs on your favorite team, and you will be guaranteed those exact stats for both players. Which would you rather have on your team, and how close is it? Obviously, there are other RBs on your team, and especially in the case of RB B, you will (just like in real life) be able to add other RBs to your team.

RB A

Rsh	Yard	YPC348	1962	5.64313	1637	5.23339	1534	4.52372	1655	4.45339	1354	3.99339	1239	3.652050   9380	4.58

RB B

Rsh	Yard	YPC221	1265	5.72205	1089	5.31182	 964	5.30195	 982	5.03192	 911	4.74 87	 485	5.58109	 520	4.78127	 493	3.89  5	   4	0.83 13	  33	2.56103	 378	3.67152	 548	3.61 94	 277	2.941685   7950	4.72

 

[Gottabesweet]

A but I wouldnt be shocked if it was B, because your posting this un-named.

 

[jesseasi]

Player A in a landslide.

Looks like you get 6 solid productive years. Player B looks like you get 5 average years and a bunch of wasted years.

This is of course assuming the receiving yards and TD's are the same.

If you tell me player B was M. Faulk I don't think it is a fair comparison at all.

 

[Chase Stuart]

A but I wouldnt be shocked if it was B, because your posting this un-named.

They aren't real numbers.(Well they sort of are, but the yardage numbers are made up. I'm ignoring the names because I don't want stuff like offensive systems/talent/supporting talent/OL ability to come into play here. I just want to know which group of statistics you'd rather have on your favorite team for the next X years.)

 

[perry147]

A but I wouldnt be shocked if it was B, because your posting this un-named.

Another vote for A

 

[T Man]

Strictly by the numbers you posted, RB A is better - and by a wide margin.

More of a workhorse back.

 

[Gottabesweet]

Ricky Williams

 

[Chase Stuart]

Player A in a landslide.

That's sort of how I feel when analyzing the data at first glance. But when I start breaking it down a bit, my opinions change. I'm not sure if they change enough, but they do change.Player B has 365 fewer carries and 1431 fewer yards. Would it be that difficult to find 3.92 YPC from other RBs to pair with Player B?

 

[AKA]

A for me and it's not close

 

[Chase Stuart]

Everyone seems to be going with A so far. This is good, because I think A is better too, but I can make a case for B (I think I'd like someone to tell me why my case is wrong, that way we'd all end up in the same spot).

Here's my case for B over A:

A had the best year, for sure. But A's second best year was no better than B's best year. 221 carries at a 5.72 YPC average is sick, and I think roughly equivalent to 313 carries at a 5.23 YPC average. 92 carries for 372 yards is the difference, and that strikes me as plain average.

By this logic, the next three best years also belong to RB B. (So the best year is RB A's first year, then the next two are even...so four of the top six go to B). A 5.00+ YPC average with 180+ carries is very valuable, IMO. And RB B also added in a couple more valuable years. RB A only had two more valuable seasons, and both were good but not great. If I had to rank the years, I'd go something like this:

RBA1 (RB A's first year)

RBA2/RBB1

RBB2

RBB3

RBB4

RBA3

RBA4

RBB5

RBB6

RBB7

All the other yeas, both guys averaged under 4.00 YPC. RB B gave you seven solid years, and four of those were top notch with over 5.00 YPC. Rb A gave you an incredible year, a top notch year, and two pretty good years.

RB B has longevity, while RB A has more carries per year. But RB B does have a higher YPC average over his career.

 

[pinda]

Chase, reading your posts, I gotta hand the award for most useless threads to you.

I didn't think you could top the one asking for the worst RB ever and giving no criteria other than that we've discussed the best RB, so let's discuss the worst. Problem is there are maybe 10 RBs to argue over the best and a few hundred for the worst.

But you've topped yourself on that post by this one. This is such a one sided choice. Give B at least a few decent seasons if you want to make this legitimate.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chase, reading your posts, I gotta hand the award for most useless threads to you.I didn't think you could top the one asking for the worst RB ever and giving no criteria other than that we've discussed the best RB, so let's discuss the worst. Problem is there are maybe 10 RBs to argue over the best and a few hundred for the worst. But you've topped yourself on that post by this one. This is such a one sided choice. Give B at least a few decent seasons if you want to make this legitimate.

Thanks, pinda.

 

[Colin Dowling]

Tomlinson compared to James Brooks? Please....LT in a heartbeat.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Player A in a landslide.

That's sort of how I feel when analyzing the data at first glance. But when I start breaking it down a bit, my opinions change. I'm not sure if they change enough, but they do change.Player B has 365 fewer carries and 1431 fewer yards. Would it be that difficult to find 3.92 YPC from other RBs to pair with Player B?

To put this in some perspective, adding Sammy Morris (374 carries for 1469 yards) to RB B would then produce greater career stats than RB A. I don't feel like adding Sammy Morris to your team is very costly.RB A: 2,050 carries, 9,380 yards

RB B + Sammy Morris: 2,059 carries, 9,419 yards

 

[jetpack]

As far as I can tell, RB A is one of the greatest RBs ever. Of the top 35 yardage leaders all-time, only Walter Payton, Eddie George, and Ladanian Tomlinson have 6 seasons (or more) in a row of 300+ rushes. Everyone else has pretty much had down years & injury years in there. This ~could~ have also been a Terrell Davis-type if he hadn't been severely overused and broke.

Personally, I think you don't pass on A, even though B gives you the opportunity to have more of a 70s Steelers-type backfield like Harris and Blier where no one back is overused and you get to use them longer and stay fresher deeper into the season.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Everyone seems to be going with A so far. This is good, because I think A is better too, but I can make a case for B (I think I'd like someone to tell me why my case is wrong, that way we'd all end up in the same spot).Here's my case for B over A:A had the best year, for sure. But A's second best year was no better than B's best year. 221 carries at a 5.72 YPC average is sick, and I think roughly equivalent to 313 carries at a 5.23 YPC average. 92 carries for 372 yards is the difference, and that strikes me as plain average.By this logic, the next three best years also belong to RB B. (So the best year is RB A's first year, then the next two are even...so four of the top six go to B). A 5.00+ YPC average with 180+ carries is very valuable, IMO. And RB B also added in a couple more valuable years. RB A only had two more valuable seasons, and both were good but not great. If I had to rank the years, I'd go something like this:RBA1 (RB A's first year)RBA2/RBB1RBB2RBB3RBB4RBA3RBA4RBB5RBB6RBB7All the other yeas, both guys averaged under 4.00 YPC. RB B gave you seven solid years, and four of those were top notch with over 5.00 YPC. Rb A gave you an incredible year, a top notch year, and two pretty good years. RB B has longevity, while RB A has more carries per year. But RB B does have a higher YPC average over his career.

I'll expand on this a bit. Here's what I was thinking. It's not difficult to find a RB to average 4.00 YPC. All RBs have averaged 4.2 YPC in the NFL in four of the last five seasons. So I'm putting 4.00 as replacement level.So here's what I did. Take each RB's YPC in each year, and subtract 4.00 from that. That difference (which is the 4th column, and the first new one) is his yards per carry above 4.00. This tells you how much better than average he was. Then I multiply that number by total carries that year, to give credit for being above the league average for more carries.The curious part, of course, is that RB B ends up with more points for his career. More total value. I think my system sounds pretty reasonable to me, but I agree with the intuition that RB A was better. Any thoughts on how to change the system?I realize that the first (and possibly correct) response is to lower the baseline of 4.00. But the lower you do that, the more you benefit compilers like Bettis, who people seem to like attacking on these boards. On the other hand, being average for a number of years is positive. So I'm not sure. Another alternative is to zero out any year below 4.00, instead of giving negative numbers. (But in this situation, that wouldn't help RB A). Maybe give a carries bonus? Something like 0.1 point per carry?I'm not sure. Like I said, I like my system (yards above 4.00 times number of carries) but I agree the result is curious.

348	 1962	5.64	1.64	570313	 1637	5.23	1.23	385339	 1534	4.52	0.52	178372	 1655	4.45	0.45	167339	 1354	3.99   -0.01   -  2339	 1239	3.65   -0.35   -1172050	9380	4.58		   1180								221	 1265	5.72	1.72	381205	 1089	5.31	1.31	269182	  964	5.30	1.30	236195	  982	5.03	1.03	202192	  911	4.74	0.74	143 87	  485	5.58	1.58	137109	  520	4.78	0.78	 84127	  493	3.89   -0.11   - 15  5		4	0.83   -3.17   - 1613		33	2.56   -1.44   - 19103	  378	3.67   -0.33   - 34152	  548	3.61   -0.39   - 60 94	  277	2.94   -1.06   - 991685	7950	4.72		   1210

 

[PMENFAN]

Assumptions: Ignore or consider equal, receiving yards and rushing TDs. You can have either of the following two RBs on your favorite team, and you will be guaranteed those exact stats for both players. Which would you rather have on your team, and how close is it? Obviously, there are other RBs on your team, and especially in the case of RB B, you will (just like in real life) be able to add other RBs to your team.RB A

Rsh	Yard	YPC348	1962	5.64313	1637	5.23339	1534	4.52372	1655	4.45339	1354	3.99339	1239	3.652050   9380	4.58

RB B

Rsh	Yard	YPC221	1265	5.72205	1089	5.31182	 964	5.30195	 982	5.03192	 911	4.74 87	 485	5.58109	 520	4.78127	 493	3.89  5	   4	0.83 13	  33	2.56103	 378	3.67152	 548	3.61 94	 277	2.941685   7950	4.72

It's hard to say. What else did they do on the team? At first glance, I'd say A. But, then I ask, did they block when they weren't running? Did they catch the ball out of the backfield? Does the player make those around him better? YOu also have to think of the ere too. IN terms of YPC in their peak years , they're about equally effective running the ball, so it looks like a was, with B even having a slight advantage. There really isn't enough information to to judge the RB's here. I just think that they're so much more than the ball carrier.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Assumptions: Ignore or consider equal, receiving yards and rushing TDs. You can have either of the following two RBs on your favorite team, and you will be guaranteed those exact stats for both players. Which would you rather have on your team, and how close is it? Obviously, there are other RBs on your team, and especially in the case of RB B, you will (just like in real life) be able to add other RBs to your team.RB A

Rsh	Yard	YPC348	1962	5.64313	1637	5.23339	1534	4.52372	1655	4.45339	1354	3.99339	1239	3.652050   9380	4.58

RB B

Rsh	Yard	YPC221	1265	5.72205	1089	5.31182	 964	5.30195	 982	5.03192	 911	4.74 87	 485	5.58109	 520	4.78127	 493	3.89  5	   4	0.83 13	  33	2.56103	 378	3.67152	 548	3.61 94	 277	2.941685   7950	4.72

It's hard to say. What else did they do on the team? At first glance, I'd say A. But, then I ask, did they block when they weren't running? Did they catch the ball out of the backfield? Does the player make those around him better? YOu also have to think of the ere too. IN terms of YPC in their peak years , they're about equally effective running the ball, so it looks like a was, with B even having a slight advantage. There really isn't enough information to to judge the RB's here. I just think that they're so much more than the ball carrier.

I probably should have been more explicit, but my only concern is who was the better rusher. I don't care about their blocking or receiving abilities, how much they make those around them better, or whether they get angry when the opponents mock their teammates dances.They are from the same era.

 

[Despyzer]

For me, the cutoff for a good season as a RB (when just counting yards and YPC) would be 1,300 yds.* and 4.0 YPC.

Player A gives me four of those seasons (and almost a fifth).

Player B never gives me one.

I wouldn't be at all upset to have both of these players on my roster at the same time though.

*(Why 1,300 yds.? 1,000 yds. was the mark of a productive season over a 12 game season, which is just over 83 yards per game. 1,300 is 83 yards per game rounded down over a 16 game season.)

 

[Chase Stuart]

For me, the cutoff for a good season as a RB (when just counting yards and YPC) would be 1,300 yds.* and 4.0 YPC.Player A gives me four of those seasons (and almost a fifth).Player B never gives me one.I wouldn't be at all upset to have both of these players on my roster at the same time though.*(Why 1,300 yds.? 1,000 yds. was the mark of a productive season over a 12 game season, which is just over 83 yards per game. 1,300 is 83 yards per game rounded down over a 16 game season.

Perhaps this is a better question. Fill in the blank to make the two equivalent, meaning you would have no preference to have a RB on your favorite team rush for 1300 yards on 300 carries, or X yards on 200 carries.1300 yards on 300 carries is equal to X yards on 200 carries?Once we get X, maybe that will move things forward here. Obviously, X has to be greater than 867; otherwise, you'd certainly prefer the 1300/300 situation. On the other hand, X clearly has to be smaller than 1300; otherwise you'd certainly prefer the 1300/200 situation. What value for X would make the two equivalent?I think answering this question goes a long way towards some interesting analysis.

 

[Despyzer]

For me, the cutoff for a good season as a RB (when just counting yards and YPC) would be 1,300 yds.* and 4.0 YPC.Player A gives me four of those seasons (and almost a fifth).Player B never gives me one.I wouldn't be at all upset to have both of these players on my roster at the same time though.*(Why 1,300 yds.? 1,000 yds. was the mark of a productive season over a 12 game season, which is just over 83 yards per game. 1,300 is 83 yards per game rounded down over a 16 game season.

Perhaps this is a better question. Fill in the blank to make the two equivalent, meaning you would have no preference to have a RB on your favorite team rush for 1300 yards on 300 carries, or X yards on 200 carries.1300 yards on 300 carries is equal to X yards on 200 carries?Once we get X, maybe that will move things forward here. Obviously, X has to be greater than 867; otherwise, you'd certainly prefer the 1300/300 situation. On the other hand, X clearly has to be smaller than 1300; otherwise you'd certainly prefer the 1300/200 situation. What value for X would make the two equivalent?I think answering this question goes a long way towards some interesting analysis.

So in other words, how much more production per carry would I want to make up for the lack of touches?

 

[Chase Stuart]

For me, the cutoff for a good season as a RB (when just counting yards and YPC) would be 1,300 yds.* and 4.0 YPC.Player A gives me four of those seasons (and almost a fifth).Player B never gives me one.I wouldn't be at all upset to have both of these players on my roster at the same time though.*(Why 1,300 yds.? 1,000 yds. was the mark of a productive season over a 12 game season, which is just over 83 yards per game. 1,300 is 83 yards per game rounded down over a 16 game season.

Perhaps this is a better question. Fill in the blank to make the two equivalent, meaning you would have no preference to have a RB on your favorite team rush for 1300 yards on 300 carries, or X yards on 200 carries.1300 yards on 300 carries is equal to X yards on 200 carries?Once we get X, maybe that will move things forward here. Obviously, X has to be greater than 867; otherwise, you'd certainly prefer the 1300/300 situation. On the other hand, X clearly has to be smaller than 1300; otherwise you'd certainly prefer the 1300/200 situation. What value for X would make the two equivalent?I think answering this question goes a long way towards some interesting analysis.

So in other words, how much more production per carry would I want to make up for the lack of touches?

Yes.(Using this 4.00 replacement system, the answer would be X = 900. 900 yards on 200 carries gives you a 4.50 YPC average (vs. a 4.33 YPC average with 1300/300), and then you could get another RB to get 400 yards on 100 carries.

 

[salmonstud]

I'm starting to think that I don't belong here anymore. I can't see myself ever getting to the point of pondering football questions like Mr. Stuart is in this thread. I have a cousin you can date Chase.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Everyone seems to be going with A so far. This is good, because I think A is better too, but I can make a case for B (I think I'd like someone to tell me why my case is wrong, that way we'd all end up in the same spot).

Here's my case for B over A:

A had the best year, for sure. But A's second best year was no better than B's best year. 221 carries at a 5.72 YPC average is sick, and I think roughly equivalent to 313 carries at a 5.23 YPC average. 92 carries for 372 yards is the difference, and that strikes me as plain average.

By this logic, the next three best years also belong to RB B. (So the best year is RB A's first year, then the next two are even...so four of the top six go to B). A 5.00+ YPC average with 180+ carries is very valuable, IMO. And RB B also added in a couple more valuable years. RB A only had two more valuable seasons, and both were good but not great. If I had to rank the years, I'd go something like this:

RBA1 (RB A's first year)

RBA2/RBB1

RBB2

RBB3

RBB4

RBA3

RBA4

RBB5

RBB6

RBB7

All the other yeas, both guys averaged under 4.00 YPC. RB B gave you seven solid years, and four of those were top notch with over 5.00 YPC. Rb A gave you an incredible year, a top notch year, and two pretty good years.

RB B has longevity, while RB A has more carries per year. But RB B does have a higher YPC average over his career.

I'll expand on this a bit. Here's what I was thinking. It's not difficult to find a RB to average 4.00 YPC. All RBs have averaged 4.2 YPC in the NFL in four of the last five seasons. So I'm putting 4.00 as replacement level.So here's what I did. Take each RB's YPC in each year, and subtract 4.00 from that. That difference (which is the 4th column, and the first new one) is his yards per carry above 4.00. This tells you how much better than average he was. Then I multiply that number by total carries that year, to give credit for being above the league average for more carries.

The curious part, of course, is that RB B ends up with more points for his career. More total value. I think my system sounds pretty reasonable to me, but I agree with the intuition that RB A was better. Any thoughts on how to change the system?

I realize that the first (and possibly correct) response is to lower the baseline of 4.00. But the lower you do that, the more you benefit compilers like Bettis, who people seem to like attacking on these boards.

On the other hand, being average for a number of years is positive. So I'm not sure. Another alternative is to zero out any year below 4.00, instead of giving negative numbers. (But in this situation, that wouldn't help RB A). Maybe give a carries bonus? Something like 0.1 point per carry?

I'm not sure. Like I said, I like my system (yards above 4.00 times number of carries) but I agree the result is curious.

348	 1962	5.64	1.64	570313	 1637	5.23	1.23	385339	 1534	4.52	0.52	178372	 1655	4.45	0.45	167339	 1354	3.99   -0.01   -  2339	 1239	3.65   -0.35   -1172050	9380	4.58		   1180								221	 1265	5.72	1.72	381205	 1089	5.31	1.31	269182	  964	5.30	1.30	236195	  982	5.03	1.03	202192	  911	4.74	0.74	143 87	  485	5.58	1.58	137109	  520	4.78	0.78	 84127	  493	3.89   -0.11   - 15  5		4	0.83   -3.17   - 1613		33	2.56   -1.44   - 19103	  378	3.67   -0.33   - 34152	  548	3.61   -0.39   - 60 94	  277	2.94   -1.06   - 991685	7950	4.72		   1210

Really? Jerome Bettis, who misinformed football fans think should be a HOF'er, only averaged 3.9 per carry his whole career.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Everyone seems to be going with A so far. This is good, because I think A is better too, but I can make a case for B (I think I'd like someone to tell me why my case is wrong, that way we'd all end up in the same spot).

Here's my case for B over A:

A had the best year, for sure. But A's second best year was no better than B's best year. 221 carries at a 5.72 YPC average is sick, and I think roughly equivalent to 313 carries at a 5.23 YPC average. 92 carries for 372 yards is the difference, and that strikes me as plain average.

By this logic, the next three best years also belong to RB B. (So the best year is RB A's first year, then the next two are even...so four of the top six go to B). A 5.00+ YPC average with 180+ carries is very valuable, IMO. And RB B also added in a couple more valuable years. RB A only had two more valuable seasons, and both were good but not great. If I had to rank the years, I'd go something like this:

RBA1 (RB A's first year)

RBA2/RBB1

RBB2

RBB3

RBB4

RBA3

RBA4

RBB5

RBB6

RBB7

All the other yeas, both guys averaged under 4.00 YPC. RB B gave you seven solid years, and four of those were top notch with over 5.00 YPC. Rb A gave you an incredible year, a top notch year, and two pretty good years.

RB B has longevity, while RB A has more carries per year. But RB B does have a higher YPC average over his career.

I'll expand on this a bit. Here's what I was thinking. It's not difficult to find a RB to average 4.00 YPC. All RBs have averaged 4.2 YPC in the NFL in four of the last five seasons. So I'm putting 4.00 as replacement level.So here's what I did. Take each RB's YPC in each year, and subtract 4.00 from that. That difference (which is the 4th column, and the first new one) is his yards per carry above 4.00. This tells you how much better than average he was. Then I multiply that number by total carries that year, to give credit for being above the league average for more carries.

The curious part, of course, is that RB B ends up with more points for his career. More total value. I think my system sounds pretty reasonable to me, but I agree with the intuition that RB A was better. Any thoughts on how to change the system?

I realize that the first (and possibly correct) response is to lower the baseline of 4.00. But the lower you do that, the more you benefit compilers like Bettis, who people seem to like attacking on these boards.

On the other hand, being average for a number of years is positive. So I'm not sure. Another alternative is to zero out any year below 4.00, instead of giving negative numbers. (But in this situation, that wouldn't help RB A). Maybe give a carries bonus? Something like 0.1 point per carry?

I'm not sure. Like I said, I like my system (yards above 4.00 times number of carries) but I agree the result is curious.

348	 1962	5.64	1.64	570313	 1637	5.23	1.23	385339	 1534	4.52	0.52	178372	 1655	4.45	0.45	167339	 1354	3.99   -0.01   -  2339	 1239	3.65   -0.35   -1172050	9380	4.58		   1180								221	 1265	5.72	1.72	381205	 1089	5.31	1.31	269182	  964	5.30	1.30	236195	  982	5.03	1.03	202192	  911	4.74	0.74	143 87	  485	5.58	1.58	137109	  520	4.78	0.78	 84127	  493	3.89   -0.11   - 15  5		4	0.83   -3.17   - 1613		33	2.56   -1.44   - 19103	  378	3.67   -0.33   - 34152	  548	3.61   -0.39   - 60 94	  277	2.94   -1.06   - 991685	7950	4.72		   1210

Really? Jerome Bettis, who misinformed football fans think should be a HOF'er, only averaged 3.9 per carry his whole career.

You know, that was for you.

 

[Despyzer]

(Using this 4.00 replacement system, the answer would be X = 900. 900 yards on 200 carries gives you a 4.50 YPC average (vs. a 4.33 YPC average with 1300/300), and then you could get another RB to get 400 yards on 100 carries.

There are way too many variables to consider, but for some reason I am inclined to say I would rather have a single back getting 4.33 yards over 300 carries than a single back getting 4.5 yards over 200 carries considering my odds of having a complimentary back gaining 4.0 yards is just as likely in either scenario.How much more production would I want to compensate for those 100 carries? I'm not sure, but it seems like it should be more than 0.17.

 

[Chase Stuart]

(Using this 4.00 replacement system, the answer would be X = 900. 900 yards on 200 carries gives you a 4.50 YPC average (vs. a 4.33 YPC average with 1300/300), and then you could get another RB to get 400 yards on 100 carries.

There are way too many variables to consider, but for some reason I am inclined to say I would rather have a single back getting 4.33 yards over 300 carries than a single back getting 4.5 yards over 200 carries considering my odds of having a complimentary back gaining 4.0 yards is just as likely in either scenario.How much more production would I want to compensate for those 100 carries? I'm not sure, but it seems like it should be more than 0.17.

I won't disagree with you, but I think that bolded part is pretty important to quantify. Any discussion of "the greatest RB of all time" or "which current RB is better" will deal with players with varying career lengths and varying workloads. That's why comparing Gale Sayers to Emmitt Smith is hard. But for the purposes of figuring out in my hypothetical "which RB is better, RB A or RB B?", you really do need to quantify how much more production you want to compensate for those 100 carries. Otherwise, it's unclear how much better RB A was than RB B.

(I hope that made some sense.)

I don't want you to pull a number out of a hat, but I would be interested if you could come up with a value of X that you think is appropriate.

 

[Mr. Yuk]

Can I cut RB B after his 7th season? If so, I would take B. I would love to pair this guy with another stud RB and have an unstoppable RBBC. To me, the total yardage of the stud RB A is not the stat to look at, YPC is more important.

IMO, RB A gives you 4 stud seasons, with the last 2 not so great. With RB B you would get 7 excellent seasons(the rest after that are throw away) and assuming you can pair him with another very good back that can match or come close to 5ypc, that's what I would choose.

ETA: It seems to me that often times in a RBBC the change of pace back has an inflated YPC in relation to how talented they actually are. This could be another study but theoretically it is because they are fresher, defense has to adjust to a different style of runner, etc. So having the other back average 5ypc I don't think is out of line. Look at a lot of the C.O.P. backs from last year, many averaged over 5ypc.

Maybe the better question is, how much are they signed for, lol. I would assume RB A would take a boatload of money to sign, whereas RB B you could sign more reasonably, and use the money you save to pair him with another stud. IF you can cut him when his career starts declining, and you have the benefit of knowing when this decline will begin, that's even more incentive IMO

 

[Jous]

Everyone seems to be going with A so far. This is good, because I think A is better too, but I can make a case for B (I think I'd like someone to tell me why my case is wrong, that way we'd all end up in the same spot).

Here's my case for B over A:

A had the best year, for sure. But A's second best year was no better than B's best year. 221 carries at a 5.72 YPC average is sick, and I think roughly equivalent to 313 carries at a 5.23 YPC average. 92 carries for 372 yards is the difference, and that strikes me as plain average.

By this logic, the next three best years also belong to RB B. (So the best year is RB A's first year, then the next two are even...so four of the top six go to B). A 5.00+ YPC average with 180+ carries is very valuable, IMO. And RB B also added in a couple more valuable years. RB A only had two more valuable seasons, and both were good but not great. If I had to rank the years, I'd go something like this:

RBA1 (RB A's first year)

RBA2/RBB1

RBB2

RBB3

RBB4

RBA3

RBA4

RBB5

RBB6

RBB7

All the other yeas, both guys averaged under 4.00 YPC. RB B gave you seven solid years, and four of those were top notch with over 5.00 YPC. Rb A gave you an incredible year, a top notch year, and two pretty good years.

RB B has longevity, while RB A has more carries per year. But RB B does have a higher YPC average over his career.

I'll expand on this a bit. Here's what I was thinking. It's not difficult to find a RB to average 4.00 YPC. All RBs have averaged 4.2 YPC in the NFL in four of the last five seasons. So I'm putting 4.00 as replacement level.So here's what I did. Take each RB's YPC in each year, and subtract 4.00 from that. That difference (which is the 4th column, and the first new one) is his yards per carry above 4.00. This tells you how much better than average he was. Then I multiply that number by total carries that year, to give credit for being above the league average for more carries.

The curious part, of course, is that RB B ends up with more points for his career. More total value. I think my system sounds pretty reasonable to me, but I agree with the intuition that RB A was better. Any thoughts on how to change the system?

I realize that the first (and possibly correct) response is to lower the baseline of 4.00. But the lower you do that, the more you benefit compilers like Bettis, who people seem to like attacking on these boards.

On the other hand, being average for a number of years is positive. So I'm not sure. Another alternative is to zero out any year below 4.00, instead of giving negative numbers. (But in this situation, that wouldn't help RB A). Maybe give a carries bonus? Something like 0.1 point per carry?

I'm not sure. Like I said, I like my system (yards above 4.00 times number of carries) but I agree the result is curious.

348 1962 5.64 1.64 570313 1637 5.23 1.23 385339 1534 4.52 0.52 178372 1655 4.45 0.45 167339 1354 3.99 -0.01 - 2339 1239 3.65 -0.35 -1172050 9380 4.58 1180 221 1265 5.72 1.72 381205 1089 5.31 1.31 269182 964 5.30 1.30 236195 982 5.03 1.03 202192 911 4.74 0.74 143 87 485 5.58 1.58 137109 520 4.78 0.78 84127 493 3.89 -0.11 - 15 5 4 0.83 -3.17 - 1613 33 2.56 -1.44 - 19103 378 3.67 -0.33 - 34152 548 3.61 -0.39 - 60 94 277 2.94 -1.06 - 991685 7950 4.72 1210

Really? Jerome Bettis, who misinformed football fans think should be a HOF'er, only averaged 3.9 per carry his whole career.

So when he's voted into the Hall of Fame, are the Hall voters just misinformed football fans as well?

 

[Despyzer]

With RB B you would get 7 excellent seasons

So, for you, anything over 4.0 YPC = "excellent season" regardless of how close to 1,000+ yards he accumulates? What is the minimum number of carries that this would hold true for you?

 

[Mr. Yuk]

With RB B you would get 7 excellent seasons

So, for you, anything over 4.0 YPC = "excellent season" regardless of how close to 1,000+ yards he accumulates? What is the minimum number of carries that this would hold true for you?

Ok, maybe 'excellent' is an exaggeration with only around 100 carries in those last couple of seasons. Again, I am assuming you can pair him with another good back. I would say anywhere near 200 carries and up while averaging over 5ypc is an excellent season.There are a ton of variables obviously. I was thinking taking salary into the equation too. RBBC, for whatever reasons you like, works in the NFL. How many Super Bowls have workhorse RBs like SA, LT, and RB KC won lately?Just thought RB B should get some love, too.

 

[Despyzer]

I would say anywhere near 200 carries and up while averaging over 5ypc is an excellent season.

I'll take those numbers every time... 200 carries at 5.0+.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Can I cut RB B after his 7th season? If so, I would take B. I would love to pair this guy with another stud RB and have an unstoppable RBBC. To me, the total yardage of the stud RB A is not the stat to look at, YPC is more important. IMO, RB A gives you 4 stud seasons, with the last 2 not so great. With RB B you would get 7 excellent seasons(the rest after that are throw away) and assuming you can pair him with another very good back that can match or come close to 5ypc, that's what I would choose. ETA: It seems to me that often times in a RBBC the change of pace back has an inflated YPC in relation to how talented they actually are. This could be another study but theoretically it is because they are fresher, defense has to adjust to a different style of runner, etc. So having the other back average 5ypc I don't think is out of line. Look at a lot of the C.O.P. backs from last year, many averaged over 5ypc.Maybe the better question is, how much are they signed for, lol. I would assume RB A would take a boatload of money to sign, whereas RB B you could sign more reasonably, and use the money you save to pair him with another stud. IF you can cut him when his career starts declining, and you have the benefit of knowing when this decline will begin, that's even more incentive IMO

You can't cut RB B at any time. You are locked into those stats. Salary considerations are also irrelevant; the two players cost the same.Your thoughts on the ability to find another RB is perfectly relevant though.

 

[Mr. Yuk]

You can't cut RB B at any time. You are locked into those stats. Salary considerations are also irrelevant; the two players cost the same.Your thoughts on the ability to find another RB is perfectly relevant though.

In that case, I would choose RB A, as I would not want to be saddled with RB B taking up a roster spot and salary the last 6-7 years of his career. These factors weigh it much more heavily in favor of RB A. Perhaps you should even the playing field in this comparison a bit by either cutting RB B's career short, or improving his last 6-7 years so they are not totally worthless.

 

[Chase Stuart]

You can't cut RB B at any time. You are locked into those stats. Salary considerations are also irrelevant; the two players cost the same.Your thoughts on the ability to find another RB is perfectly relevant though.

In that case, I would choose RB A, as I would not want to be saddled with RB B taking up a roster spot and salary the last 6-7 years of his career. These factors weigh it much more heavily in favor of RB A. Perhaps you should even the playing field in this comparison a bit by either cutting RB B's career short, or improving his last 6-7 years so they are not totally worthless.

As a technical matter, those aren't the last years of his career. The seasons aren't presented chronologically, but rather from best seasons to worst seasons using the system described earlier. I don't think it would change anyone's opinion whether a guy was great/terrible in year 1 or year 4. Either way, that's what you have. I don't think the order matters at all, but maybe I'm wrong.I can't improve RB B's last 6-7 years, because that's what they are. Notice that despite this, he still comes out with more career 'points' than RB A. That's the part I'm trying to remedy; the system, not the inputs.

 

[Chase Stuart]

348 1962 5.64 1.64 570313 1637 5.23 1.23 385339 1534 4.52 0.52 178372 1655 4.45 0.45 167339 1354 3.99 -0.01 - 2339 1239 3.65 -0.35 -1172050 9380 4.58 1180 221 1265 5.72 1.72 381205 1089 5.31 1.31 269182 964 5.30 1.30 236195 982 5.03 1.03 202192 911 4.74 0.74 143 87 485 5.58 1.58 137109 520 4.78 0.78 84127 493 3.89 -0.11 - 15 5 4 0.83 -3.17 - 1613 33 2.56 -1.44 - 19103 378 3.67 -0.33 - 34152 548 3.61 -0.39 - 6094 277 2.94 -1.06 - 991685 7950 4.72 1210This remains my sticking point. This gives RB B the edge, despite most people preferring RB A. So obviously people must think this system doesn't do a good job of telling you which RB is better. What would you do to change the system?(Right now it's yards per carry above 4.00 -- that's what the 4th column tels us, multiplied by number of carries. The fifth column gives you that result.)

 

[Marauder]

This remains my sticking point. This gives RB B the edge, despite most people preferring RB A. So obviously people must think this system doesn't do a good job of telling you which RB is better. What would you do to change the system?

The problem is that you cannot tell by looking at the stats why player A is getting so many more carries per year than player B. Is it because player B misses time because of injuries? Or he can't handle the load? Or maybe he has a coach who likes to use RBBC? In general, my feeling is that it would be a huge mistake to pick one guy over another based soley on stats. The stats need to be taken in context with the situation.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This remains my sticking point. This gives RB B the edge, despite most people preferring RB A. So obviously people must think this system doesn't do a good job of telling you which RB is better. What would you do to change the system?

The problem is that you cannot tell by looking at the stats why player A is getting so many more carries per year than player B. Is it because player B misses time because of injuries? Or he can't handle the load? Or maybe he has a coach who likes to use RBBC? In general, my feeling is that it would be a huge mistake to pick one guy over another based soley on stats. The stats need to be taken in context with the situation.

I don't think any of those things matter. If player B misses time because of injury, or if he can't handle the loan, or if he is part of a RBBC, why would that change how good his stats were?Put it another way...what explanation for the stats would make you choose player B's career for your favorite team, over player A?

 

[Marauder]

This remains my sticking point. This gives RB B the edge, despite most people preferring RB A. So obviously people must think this system doesn't do a good job of telling you which RB is better. What would you do to change the system?

The problem is that you cannot tell by looking at the stats why player A is getting so many more carries per year than player B. Is it because player B misses time because of injuries? Or he can't handle the load? Or maybe he has a coach who likes to use RBBC? In general, my feeling is that it would be a huge mistake to pick one guy over another based soley on stats. The stats need to be taken in context with the situation.

I don't think any of those things matter. If player B misses time because of injury, or if he can't handle the loan, or if he is part of a RBBC, why would that change how good his stats were?Put it another way...what explanation for the stats would make you choose player B's career for your favorite team, over player A?

Its not the explanation itself that would make me choose Player B but based on the type of player he is and the makeup of my team I might choose him. For example, if I already have another workhorse type back on my team and I see Player B as more of a big play threat he might have more value to my team.As a head coach, I'm not as concerned about the individual stats of the players as I am in the combined stats for the team. A guy who fills a specific need might have more value than another guy who might be a better overall player but is a duplicate of two other players you already have.

 

[Chase Stuart]

This remains my sticking point. This gives RB B the edge, despite most people preferring RB A. So obviously people must think this system doesn't do a good job of telling you which RB is better. What would you do to change the system?

The problem is that you cannot tell by looking at the stats why player A is getting so many more carries per year than player B. Is it because player B misses time because of injuries? Or he can't handle the load? Or maybe he has a coach who likes to use RBBC? In general, my feeling is that it would be a huge mistake to pick one guy over another based soley on stats. The stats need to be taken in context with the situation.

I don't think any of those things matter. If player B misses time because of injury, or if he can't handle the loan, or if he is part of a RBBC, why would that change how good his stats were?Put it another way...what explanation for the stats would make you choose player B's career for your favorite team, over player A?

Its not the explanation itself that would make me choose Player B but based on the type of player he is and the makeup of my team I might choose him. For example, if I already have another workhorse type back on my team and I see Player B as more of a big play threat he might have more value to my team.As a head coach, I'm not as concerned about the individual stats of the players as I am in the combined stats for the team. A guy who fills a specific need might have more value than another guy who might be a better overall player but is a duplicate of two other players you already have.

Thanks for the response. I'll try to clarify.It doesn't matter if you have another workhorse type back on your team -- either way, you'll be getting the exact stats from Player A and Player B. So if you've got Jim Brown in his prime on your team, you still have to give 300+ carries every year to RB A. Conversely, if you've got the worst collection of RBs in the world on your team, you can't give RB B any more carries.So it's not really about whether you see Player B as more of a big play threat; either way, you're getting those exact stats. Let me try and rephrase the question:The NFL is going to throw every player on every roster into a big pool. You can now draft whoever you want. You know for sure, however, the exact stats of RB A and RB B for the next X years, and there's nothing you can do to change that. Which player would you want to draft first? (Or assuming you felt like it was time to grab a RB and both were around, but neither would be around for your next pick, who would you grab?)I agree with you that as a fan or head coach, individual stats isn't as important as the combined stats for the team. The system I'm using says "Pick RB B." I'm curious if you agree or disagree, and if you disagree, how would you change the system to make it say "Pick RB A." (And of course, this has broader implications. The system has to make sense when looking at all players. It can't be choose the guy with more carries all the time, because that's not going to be very accurate.)

 

[Mr. Yuk]

As a technical matter, those aren't the last years of his career. The seasons aren't presented chronologically, but rather from best seasons to worst seasons using the system described earlier. I don't think it would change anyone's opinion whether a guy was great/terrible in year 1 or year 4. Either way, that's what you have. I don't think the order matters at all, but maybe I'm wrong.I can't improve RB B's last 6-7 years, because that's what they are. Notice that despite this, he still comes out with more career 'points' than RB A. That's the part I'm trying to remedy; the system, not the inputs.

I assumed these were hypothetical. So, when will you reveal who they are?IMO I think order does matter, for example, you wouldn't want a guy who is great on the even years and gets hurt or sucks on the odd years. On those odd years you would have to always scramble for another RB to carry the load. Whereas if you had a RB who you KNEW would have 7 good years and then 7 bad years, once you were past his 7 good years you could get another stud RB to carry the load from there. But this is all probably irrellivant to your system of RB A vs B anyway because we can't predict stats

 

[Chase Stuart]

As a technical matter, those aren't the last years of his career. The seasons aren't presented chronologically, but rather from best seasons to worst seasons using the system described earlier. I don't think it would change anyone's opinion whether a guy was great/terrible in year 1 or year 4. Either way, that's what you have. I don't think the order matters at all, but maybe I'm wrong.

I can't improve RB B's last 6-7 years, because that's what they are. Notice that despite this, he still comes out with more career 'points' than RB A. That's the part I'm trying to remedy; the system, not the inputs.

I assumed these were hypothetical. So, when will you reveal who they are?IMO I think order does matter, for example, you wouldn't want a guy who is great on the even years and gets hurt or sucks on the odd years. On those odd years you would have to always scramble for another RB to carry the load. Whereas if you had a RB who you KNEW would have 7 good years and then 7 bad years, once you were past his 7 good years you could get another stud RB to carry the load from there. But this is all probably irrellivant to your system of RB A vs B anyway because we can't predict stats

As Colin Dowling figured it, it's a manipulation of LaDainian Tomlinson's and James Brooks' career stats. I'm working on a model to try and compare all rushing statistics of all RBs across eras. The model used so far placed Brooks one spot ahead of LT. Now Brooks was a very good and underrated RB, but his career (and even more so he) wasn't as good as Tomlinson's six-year career. At least, that's my opinion. Obviously Tomlinson is a better RB and will certainly end his career with much better stats, but I think even six years of LT trumps the whole Brooks career.I didn't want to reveal the names because we'll get into the meaningless banter about which player's offensive line was better, supporting cast, etc. I'm just trying to look at which stats were better, and I think LT's stats were better. (I also think LT was better, but that's not relevant).

It's not difficult to say LT was better than Brooks. The difficult, and confusing part, is to say how much better than Brooks was LT. Was the difference between Brooks and LT equal to the difference between Ricky Watters and Ricky Williams? Curtis Martin and Payton? Terrell Davis and Clinton Portis? Who knows.

(Well, who knows is the problem. I'm trying to quantify this, which would allow us to in some ways answer the question. The problem is when the numbers say something like Brooks is better than Tomlinson.)

 

[Mr. Yuk]

348	 1962	5.64	1.64	570313	 1637	5.23	1.23	385339	 1534	4.52	0.52	178372	 1655	4.45	0.45	167339	 1354	3.99   -0.01   -  2339	 1239	3.65   -0.35   -1172050	9380	4.58		   1180								221	 1265	5.72	1.72	381205	 1089	5.31	1.31	269182	  964	5.30	1.30	236195	  982	5.03	1.03	202192	  911	4.74	0.74	143 87	  485	5.58	1.58	137109	  520	4.78	0.78	 84127	  493	3.89   -0.11   - 15  5		4	0.83   -3.17   - 1613		33	2.56   -1.44   - 19103	  378	3.67   -0.33   - 34152	  548	3.61   -0.39   - 6094	  277	2.94   -1.06   - 991685	7950	4.72		   1210

This remains my sticking point. This gives RB B the edge, despite most people preferring RB A. So obviously people must think this system doesn't do a good job of telling you which RB is better. What would you do to change the system?(Right now it's yards per carry above 4.00 -- that's what the 4th column tels us, multiplied by number of carries. The fifth column gives you that result.)

Perhaps (points/seasons played)? This would give a large edge to RB A. As a side effect, I think it would downgrade guys that tend to get hurt often in the careers for large portions of year, such as it looks like with RB B(this could be viewed as a positive or a negative, a positive IMO). On the negative side, it may downgrade too much good players that hung around past their prime, and those last few years would drag down their average. Maybe throw out the worst season or two for every player? Probably not the best way but just throwing out ideas

 

[Chase Stuart]

348	 1962	5.64	1.64	570313	 1637	5.23	1.23	385339	 1534	4.52	0.52	178372	 1655	4.45	0.45	167339	 1354	3.99   -0.01   -  2339	 1239	3.65   -0.35   -1172050	9380	4.58		   1180								221	 1265	5.72	1.72	381205	 1089	5.31	1.31	269182	  964	5.30	1.30	236195	  982	5.03	1.03	202192	  911	4.74	0.74	143 87	  485	5.58	1.58	137109	  520	4.78	0.78	 84127	  493	3.89   -0.11   - 15  5		4	0.83   -3.17   - 1613		33	2.56   -1.44   - 19103	  378	3.67   -0.33   - 34152	  548	3.61   -0.39   - 6094	  277	2.94   -1.06   - 991685	7950	4.72		   1210

This remains my sticking point. This gives RB B the edge, despite most people preferring RB A. So obviously people must think this system doesn't do a good job of telling you which RB is better. What would you do to change the system?(Right now it's yards per carry above 4.00 -- that's what the 4th column tels us, multiplied by number of carries. The fifth column gives you that result.)

Perhaps (points/seasons played)? This would give a large edge to RB A. As a side effect, I think it would downgrade guys that tend to get hurt often in the careers for large portions of year, such as it looks like with RB B(this could be viewed as a positive or a negative, a positive IMO). On the negative side, it may downgrade too much good players that hung around past their prime, and those last few years would drag down their average. Maybe throw out the worst season or two for every player? Probably not the best way but just throwing out ideas

Throwing out ideas is a good way to get a from me. Could always use more of those.I think you nailed the biggest drawback, which is that a RB can stick around, play well, yet hurt his value under this system. That's bad. It also would make it unfair to compare current to retired players, and players under the 16 game schedule vs. those under the shorter schedules. (BTW, I just did this, and Maurice Jones Drew becomes the greatest RB of all time. Frank Gore is number 4, and Norwood is number 5. Larry Johnson 7, and Bo Jackson 8.Obviously, if this is used to figure out the greatest RB ever, we can just institute a floor -- must have played at least five years. But TD and lots of active players still rank too high, and someone like Sayers or Sims is probably being given too much credit.)

 

[Mr. Yuk]

As a technical matter, those aren't the last years of his career. The seasons aren't presented chronologically, but rather from best seasons to worst seasons using the system described earlier. I don't think it would change anyone's opinion whether a guy was great/terrible in year 1 or year 4. Either way, that's what you have. I don't think the order matters at all, but maybe I'm wrong.

I can't improve RB B's last 6-7 years, because that's what they are. Notice that despite this, he still comes out with more career 'points' than RB A. That's the part I'm trying to remedy; the system, not the inputs.

I assumed these were hypothetical. So, when will you reveal who they are?IMO I think order does matter, for example, you wouldn't want a guy who is great on the even years and gets hurt or sucks on the odd years. On those odd years you would have to always scramble for another RB to carry the load. Whereas if you had a RB who you KNEW would have 7 good years and then 7 bad years, once you were past his 7 good years you could get another stud RB to carry the load from there. But this is all probably irrellivant to your system of RB A vs B anyway because we can't predict stats

As Colin Dowling figured it, it's a manipulation of LaDainian Tomlinson's and James Brooks' career stats. I'm working on a model to try and compare all rushing statistics of all RBs across eras. The model used so far placed Brooks one spot ahead of LT. Now Brooks was a very good and underrated RB, but his career (and even more so he) wasn't as good as Tomlinson's six-year career. At least, that's my opinion. Obviously Tomlinson is a better RB and will certainly end his career with much better stats, but I think even six years of LT trumps the whole Brooks career.I didn't want to reveal the names because we'll get into the meaningless banter about which player's offensive line was better, supporting cast, etc. I'm just trying to look at which stats were better, and I think LT's stats were better. (I also think LT was better, but that's not relevant).

It's not difficult to say LT was better than Brooks. The difficult, and confusing part, is to say how much better than Brooks was LT. Was the difference between Brooks and LT equal to the difference between Ricky Watters and Ricky Williams? Curtis Martin and Payton? Terrell Davis and Clinton Portis? Who knows.

(Well, who knows is the problem. I'm trying to quantify this, which would allow us to in some ways answer the question. The problem is when the numbers say something like Brooks is better than Tomlinson.)

Another thought just occured to me after reading this. What if you were to change to model to increase the value, slightly, of the yardage after a certain number of carries, say, 50% of the average # of carries per team, per season. Let's say(I'm just guessing), the average NFL team runs the ball 450 times per season. Half of those carries would be 225. For, say, 225-250 carries, multiply that players total yardage by 1.01. 250-275 by 1.02, 275-300 by 1.03, etc. Or if you are able to (I don't know if the stats can be broken down this far but I doubt it) only increase by whatever factor you decide, the yardage obtained on those specific carries, 225-250, 250-275, etc. IMO this could reflect the added value of a workhorse back.

 

[Chase Stuart]

As a technical matter, those aren't the last years of his career. The seasons aren't presented chronologically, but rather from best seasons to worst seasons using the system described earlier. I don't think it would change anyone's opinion whether a guy was great/terrible in year 1 or year 4. Either way, that's what you have. I don't think the order matters at all, but maybe I'm wrong.

I can't improve RB B's last 6-7 years, because that's what they are. Notice that despite this, he still comes out with more career 'points' than RB A. That's the part I'm trying to remedy; the system, not the inputs.

I assumed these were hypothetical. So, when will you reveal who they are?IMO I think order does matter, for example, you wouldn't want a guy who is great on the even years and gets hurt or sucks on the odd years. On those odd years you would have to always scramble for another RB to carry the load. Whereas if you had a RB who you KNEW would have 7 good years and then 7 bad years, once you were past his 7 good years you could get another stud RB to carry the load from there. But this is all probably irrellivant to your system of RB A vs B anyway because we can't predict stats

As Colin Dowling figured it, it's a manipulation of LaDainian Tomlinson's and James Brooks' career stats. I'm working on a model to try and compare all rushing statistics of all RBs across eras. The model used so far placed Brooks one spot ahead of LT. Now Brooks was a very good and underrated RB, but his career (and even more so he) wasn't as good as Tomlinson's six-year career. At least, that's my opinion. Obviously Tomlinson is a better RB and will certainly end his career with much better stats, but I think even six years of LT trumps the whole Brooks career.I didn't want to reveal the names because we'll get into the meaningless banter about which player's offensive line was better, supporting cast, etc. I'm just trying to look at which stats were better, and I think LT's stats were better. (I also think LT was better, but that's not relevant).

It's not difficult to say LT was better than Brooks. The difficult, and confusing part, is to say how much better than Brooks was LT. Was the difference between Brooks and LT equal to the difference between Ricky Watters and Ricky Williams? Curtis Martin and Payton? Terrell Davis and Clinton Portis? Who knows.

(Well, who knows is the problem. I'm trying to quantify this, which would allow us to in some ways answer the question. The problem is when the numbers say something like Brooks is better than Tomlinson.)

Another thought just occured to me after reading this. What if you were to change to model to increase the value, slightly, of the yardage after a certain number of carries, say, 50% of the average # of carries per team, per season. Let's say(I'm just guessing), the average NFL team runs the ball 450 times per season. Half of those carries would be 225. For, say, 225-250 carries, multiply that players total yardage by 1.01. 250-275 by 1.02, 275-300 by 1.03, etc. Or if you are able to (I don't know if the stats can be broken down this far but I doubt it) only increase by whatever factor you decide, the yardage obtained on those specific carries, 225-250, 250-275, etc. IMO this could reflect the added value of a workhorse back.

Not a bad idea, but the obvious question becomes: what is the added value of a workhorse back. Is it more valuable to have 1 RB with 350 carries and 4.5 YPC than 2 RBs with 175 carries and 4.5 YPC? If so, why?

 

[Mr. Yuk]

Throwing out ideas is a good way to get a from me. Could always use more of those.I think you nailed the biggest drawback, which is that a RB can stick around, play well, yet hurt his value under this system. That's bad. It also would make it unfair to compare current to retired players, and players under the 16 game schedule vs. those under the shorter schedules. (BTW, I just did this, and Maurice Jones Drew becomes the greatest RB of all time. Frank Gore is number 4, and Norwood is number 5. Larry Johnson 7, and Bo Jackson 8.Obviously, if this is used to figure out the greatest RB ever, we can just institute a floor -- must have played at least five years. But TD and lots of active players still rank too high, and someone like Sayers or Sims is probably being given too much credit.)

It is an imperfect science, no doubt, to try to mathmatically determine the greatest anything of all time.(but we can sure try), there are too many variables that can be debated. If you say that TD is a product of the Denver system, how do you account for that system, or any system? Or, who's to say that TD couldn't have been just as great or better on any team? How do you account for longevity? Would you rather have a player who has 5 excellent seasons and retire or a player who has 10 very good but not quite great seasons? Matters of opinion, unfortunately, can't be factored in

 

[Chase Stuart]

Throwing out ideas is a good way to get a from me. Could always use more of those.

I think you nailed the biggest drawback, which is that a RB can stick around, play well, yet hurt his value under this system. That's bad. It also would make it unfair to compare current to retired players, and players under the 16 game schedule vs. those under the shorter schedules.

(BTW, I just did this, and Maurice Jones Drew becomes the greatest RB of all time. Frank Gore is number 4, and Norwood is number 5. Larry Johnson 7, and Bo Jackson 8.

Obviously, if this is used to figure out the greatest RB ever, we can just institute a floor -- must have played at least five years. But TD and lots of active players still rank too high, and someone like Sayers or Sims is probably being given too much credit.)

It is an imperfect science, no doubt, to try to mathmatically determine the greatest anything of all time.(but we can sure try), there are too many variables that can be debated. If you say that TD is a product of the Denver system, how do you account for that system, or any system? Or, who's to say that TD couldn't have been just as great or better on any team? How do you account for longevity? Would you rather have a player who has 5 excellent seasons and retire or a player who has 10 very good but not quite great seasons? Matters of opinion, unfortunately, can't be factored in

Product of the system is irrelevant, since we're looking at which stats are best. Longevity can be accounted for, and that's what we're trying to do. Would you rather have a player with 6 excellent seasons or one with 7 very good but not quite great seasons? Everyone would take the six. What about 3 excellent seasons or 12 very good but not quite great seasons? Everyone would take the twelve. On some level, these questions are easy, but all variations of the question are just differences in degree. You don't need an intricate system to answer the two questions I just asked, but it's unclear at the edges. That's why I'm working on this system.(In case you're curious, here's something that I did called the "The Best QB of All Time?." That has similar caveats -- supporting casts were ignored, rushing stats were ignored (so best passer of all time would be better), but that system at least worked better than this system for RBs (at least so far).

 

[Mr. Yuk]

Not a bad idea, but the obvious question becomes: what is the added value of a workhorse back. Is it more valuable to have 1 RB with 350 carries and 4.5 YPC than 2 RBs with 175 carries and 4.5 YPC? If so, why?

I would argue the 1 workhorse back is more valuable. Takes up one less roster space. You know what you are getting. If one of the RBBC got hurt, there is no guarantee the other will maintain that 4.5ypc(Yes, it is possible they could improve their YPC once they became the full-time back, but I'm guessing history would show the opposite is more likely).

 

[Mr. Yuk]

Throwing out ideas is a good way to get a from me. Could always use more of those.

I think you nailed the biggest drawback, which is that a RB can stick around, play well, yet hurt his value under this system. That's bad. It also would make it unfair to compare current to retired players, and players under the 16 game schedule vs. those under the shorter schedules.

(BTW, I just did this, and Maurice Jones Drew becomes the greatest RB of all time. Frank Gore is number 4, and Norwood is number 5. Larry Johnson 7, and Bo Jackson 8.

Obviously, if this is used to figure out the greatest RB ever, we can just institute a floor -- must have played at least five years. But TD and lots of active players still rank too high, and someone like Sayers or Sims is probably being given too much credit.)

It is an imperfect science, no doubt, to try to mathmatically determine the greatest anything of all time.(but we can sure try), there are too many variables that can be debated. If you say that TD is a product of the Denver system, how do you account for that system, or any system? Or, who's to say that TD couldn't have been just as great or better on any team? How do you account for longevity? Would you rather have a player who has 5 excellent seasons and retire or a player who has 10 very good but not quite great seasons? Matters of opinion, unfortunately, can't be factored in

Product of the system is irrelevant, since we're looking at which stats are best. Longevity can be accounted for, and that's what we're trying to do. Would you rather have a player with 6 excellent seasons or one with 7 very good but not quite great seasons? Everyone would take the six. What about 3 excellent seasons or 12 very good but not quite great seasons? Everyone would take the twelve. On some level, these questions are easy, but all variations of the question are just differences in degree. You don't need an intricate system to answer the two questions I just asked, but it's unclear at the edges. That's why I'm working on this system.(In case you're curious, here's something that I did called the "The Best QB of All Time?." That has similar caveats -- supporting casts were ignored, rushing stats were ignored (so best passer of all time would be better), but that system at least worked better than this system for RBs (at least so far).

True. But you have to agree that the system affects the stats. Maybe TD would have been a nobody and never been heard of if he had played on another team. It can be determined which players have the greatest stats of all time, but there are so many variables and opinions on what makes greatness. The examples you showed have pretty obvious answers, but the ones one the edges are the, would you rather have a Priest Holmes or a TD, guys who might not even make the HOF but could be argued are some of the all time greats, or a Jerome Bettis, who will end up in the HOF. I would take Holmes or TD myself, but obviously not everyone (like HOF voters)agrees with that. Even if a perfect formula were devised to determine the greatest stats, that brings you to the question, does greatest stats ever=greatest player ever?