Which career is better? (1 Viewer)

[redman]

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

Another vote for A

 

[cobalt_27]

I haven't given this full consideration, yet, but upon a cursory glance, I do have a preference is for (A). But, let me first defend why (B) would be better:

(B) was certainly not depended on for the workload as much as (A). This means interpolating how a complementary back (for B) has to perform in order to match the average performance of (A).

* (A) averaged 4.58 ypc throughout his career.

* In (B's) 13-year career, he had 7 years that eclipsed this average.

* In fact, the complementary back for (B) would need to average less than 4.24 ypc in those 7 years to round out the team's running game to match or surpass (A).

***Now, here's where I start getting tepid about (B)***

* It's important to note that in three (3) of the 7 good years, this complementary back would've had to average more than 4.2 ypc. Personally, I don't think this is highly likely. Possible, yes. But, likely, no.

* So, I'm effectively calling this a clear 4-year advantage for (B), but not 7 years.

Now, one might say, "Well, that represents 66% of (A's) 6-year career." While this is true, what I don't like are the 6 "suck" years for (B). In those years, a complementary back for (B) would have to average more than 4.58 ypc for his production. In essence, I consider this 6 years of (B) being a liability for the team versus null years for (A). My assumption is that, when (A) retired, they would be able to commit resources to finding a competent replacement RB. But, for (B), the team's expectations that were based on the first 7 years put them in a compromising position, and thus relying on unrealistic expectations for the complementary back.

Ultimately, I'm in favor of 5 very solid years from (A) and then a license to "move on with life" after he retired. I guess I'm favoring this over 4 tremendous (albeit limited) years from (B), 4 adequate years (again, limited), and then 5 years of disaster.

 

[Chase Stuart]

It can be determined which players have the greatest stats of all time

Actually, that's exactly what I'm trying to determine. I don't think that's very easy, and why I'm trying to tweak this formula.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I haven't given this full consideration, yet, but upon a cursory glance, I do have a preference is for (A). But, let me first defend why (B) would be better:

(B) was certainly not depended on for the workload as much as (A). This means interpolating how a complementary back (for B) has to perform in order to match the average performance of (A).

* (A) averaged 4.58 ypc throughout his career.

* In (B's) 13-year career, he had 7 years that eclipsed this average.

* In fact, the complementary back for (B) would need to average less than 4.24 ypc in those 7 years to round out the team's running game to match or surpass (A).

***Now, here's where I start getting tepid about (B)***

* It's important to note that in three (3) of the 7 good years, this complementary back would've had to average more than 4.2 ypc. Personally, I don't think this is highly likely. Possible, yes. But, likely, no.

* So, I'm effectively calling this a clear 4-year advantage for (B), but not 7 years.

Now, one might say, "Well, that represents 66% of (A's) 6-year career." While this is true, what I don't like are the 6 "suck" years for (B). In those years, a complementary back for (B) would have to average more than 4.58 ypc for his production. In essence, I consider this 6 years of (B) being a liability for the team versus null years for (A). My assumption is that, when (A) retired, they would be able to commit resources to finding a competent replacement RB. But, for (B), the team's expectations that were based on the first 7 years put them in a compromising position, and thus relying on unrealistic expectations for the complementary back.

Ultimately, I'm in favor of 5 very solid years from (A) and then a license to "move on with life" after he retired. I guess I'm favoring this over 4 tremendous (albeit limited) years from (B), 4 adequate years (again, limited), and then 5 years of disaster.

It sounds like you're doing a gut version of the empirical analysis presented earlier -- which showed B won.And once again, ignore the chronology. The years aren't listed in that order, but rather from best to worst.

 

[Chase Stuart]

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).

I suppose the roster space argument is a good one, but then again, that should be quantifiable. I actually think a stronger argument can be made in favor of the two RBs; if your stud gets hurt (which may be more likely to happen with so many carries), you've got nothing. At least if one of your 2 RBs get hurt, you have the other.

 

[cobalt_27]

It sounds like you're doing a gut version of the empirical analysis presented earlier -- which showed B won.

And once again, ignore the chronology. The years aren't listed in that order, but rather from best to worst.

Alright, admittedly, I read the first couple of posts and tried to address the question without being "tainted" by other analyses, such as what you did.So, now let me approach it this way:

Since, 2000, the average yards per rush has been 4.12, overall.

But, my thinking is that a decent amount of that is going to be contributed by the elite rushers who get the ball a lot. In order to address this question, we need some expectation of what the replacement RBs are going to do. So, if you remove the group that's in the top 10% in yearly rushes (anyone >252/yr), the average drops to what you suggested before: 4.0.

Now, it seems we can calculate an expected yearly rushing line for each RB and his replacement(s).

For starters, the average number of rushes per team = 442 per year (since 2000).

In (A)'s best year, his line was 348/1962. It's expected that that team would rush another 94 attempts (to get to 442) at 4.0 ypc. This adds another 376 yards to the team's total, which yields 2338 total yards for the year.

In (B)'s best year, his line was 221/1265. It's expected that the team would rush another 221 times at 4.0 ypc. This adds another 884 to the team's total, which yields 2149 total yards for that year.

And, you can do this for each season, of course.

Now, if the overall average YPC = 4.12, then every team should be expected to have 1827 rushing yards each year on an expected 442 carries (we'll call this the "league expected average" or "LEA"). What I did is subtract that rushing total (1827) from each of the 19 seasons between the two RBs (6 for (A) and 13 for (B)) and then added them up for each RB.

RB (A)'s team rushed for 827 yards over the LEA over the course of 6 years (138 yards/season):

Yearly Difference2338 - 1827 = 5112153 - 1827 = 3261946 - 1827 = 1191935 - 1827 = 1081766 - 1827 = -611651 - 1827 = -176SUM = 827RB (B)'s team rushed for only 442 yards over the LEA over 13 years (34 yards per year):

2149 - 1827 = 3222037 - 1827 = 2102004 - 1827 = 1771970 - 1827 = 1431911 - 1827 = 841905 - 1827 = 781852 - 1827 = 251753 - 1827 = -741752 - 1827 = -751749 - 1827 = -781734 - 1827 = -931708 - 1827 = -1191669 - 1827 = -158SUM = 442

By my way of thinking on this, the productivity over the LEA for the team with RB (A) was superior to the team's productivity who had RB (B).Even when you remove the "down" years for each RB and simply take the top-4 seasons for both backs, the team with RB (A) still has the superior set of seasons, rushing for 1064 yards (266+ per season) over the LEA. The team with RB (B) only outperformed the LEA by 852 yards (213+ per season).

Ultimately, I think it's this kind of analysis that gives us some expectations for team performance and we can compare those performances to expected league averages (based on data from 2000-2006). I can't imagine another way to really capture the output and productivity that these two teams are going to achieve. My central theme here is that, ultimately, we have to consider team performances, and that RBs (A) and (B) are simply contributors to their team's overall, respective output.

IMO, the team with RB (A) gets the better end of the deal.

Any critique of this methodology or the inferences made based on the data are always appreciated.

 

[Bob Henry]

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).

I suppose the roster space argument is a good one, but then again, that should be quantifiable. I actually think a stronger argument can be made in favor of the two RBs; if your stud gets hurt (which may be more likely to happen with so many carries), you've got nothing. At least if one of your 2 RBs get hurt, you have the other.

In both case A and B, however, you would still add a 2nd RB, no? Give me the workhorse all day long. If he goes down, you still have a backup and there's no criteria that says situation B's backup is any better than in situation A... unless I missed it somewhere in the post. So, I'm not sure that "you've got nothing" if A goes down. You're in the same boat with a backup as a starter either way. I understand, theoretically, player A will command a much greater salary, so in the absence of good front office and scouting work, it may be more difficult to roster a backup with the same perceived value/talent as in B.. however, it's not a given.

 

[Mr. Yuk]

(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).

Very interesting, thanks Chase

 

[Mr. Yuk]

It sounds like you're doing a gut version of the empirical analysis presented earlier -- which showed B won.

And once again, ignore the chronology. The years aren't listed in that order, but rather from best to worst.

Alright, admittedly, I read the first couple of posts and tried to address the question without being "tainted" by other analyses, such as what you did.So, now let me approach it this way:

Since, 2000, the average yards per rush has been 4.12, overall.

But, my thinking is that a decent amount of that is going to be contributed by the elite rushers who get the ball a lot. In order to address this question, we need some expectation of what the replacement RBs are going to do. So, if you remove the group that's in the top 10% in yearly rushes (anyone >252/yr), the average drops to what you suggested before: 4.0.

Now, it seems we can calculate an expected yearly rushing line for each RB and his replacement(s).

For starters, the average number of rushes per team = 442 per year (since 2000).

In (A)'s best year, his line was 348/1962. It's expected that that team would rush another 94 attempts (to get to 442) at 4.0 ypc. This adds another 376 yards to the team's total, which yields 2338 total yards for the year.

In (B)'s best year, his line was 221/1265. It's expected that the team would rush another 221 times at 4.0 ypc. This adds another 884 to the team's total, which yields 2149 total yards for that year.

And, you can do this for each season, of course.

Now, if the overall average YPC = 4.12, then every team should be expected to have 1827 rushing yards each year on an expected 442 carries (we'll call this the "league expected average" or "LEA"). What I did is subtract that rushing total (1827) from each of the 19 seasons between the two RBs (6 for (A) and 13 for (B)) and then added them up for each RB.

RB (A)'s team rushed for 827 yards over the LEA over the course of 6 years (138 yards/season):

Yearly Difference2338 - 1827 = 5112153 - 1827 = 3261946 - 1827 = 1191935 - 1827 = 1081766 - 1827 = -611651 - 1827 = -176SUM = 827RB (B)'s team rushed for only 442 yards over the LEA over 13 years (34 yards per year):

2149 - 1827 = 3222037 - 1827 = 2102004 - 1827 = 1771970 - 1827 = 1431911 - 1827 = 841905 - 1827 = 781852 - 1827 = 251753 - 1827 = -741752 - 1827 = -751749 - 1827 = -781734 - 1827 = -931708 - 1827 = -1191669 - 1827 = -158SUM = 442

By my way of thinking on this, the productivity over the LEA for the team with RB (A) was superior to the team's productivity who had RB (B).Even when you remove the "down" years for each RB and simply take the top-4 seasons for both backs, the team with RB (A) still has the superior set of seasons, rushing for 1064 yards (266+ per season) over the LEA. The team with RB (B) only outperformed the LEA by 852 yards (213+ per season).

Ultimately, I think it's this kind of analysis that gives us some expectations for team performance and we can compare those performances to expected league averages (based on data from 2000-2006). I can't imagine another way to really capture the output and productivity that these two teams are going to achieve. My central theme here is that, ultimately, we have to consider team performances, and that RBs (A) and (B) are simply contributors to their team's overall, respective output.

IMO, the team with RB (A) gets the better end of the deal.

Any critique of this methodology or the inferences made based on the data are always appreciated.

I like this idea

 

[DropKick]

All the other years, 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.

If I'm an NFL owner, General Manager, Head Coach, Offensive Coordinator or just a plain old fantasy football player, I'll take A and it ain't even remotely close.Best years? You put waaaaay too much stock into YPC. Your assessment of RB A's career is : "an incredible year, a top notch year, and two pretty good years". He flirts with the 2,000 yard mark; Goes over 1,500 yards 4 times and exceeds 1,200 yards six times - every year of his career.In contrast, the second back exceeds 1,200 yards just once; and exceeds the watered-down 1,000 mark just one other time.Short career? No, six years from someone with that many touches is about right. Show me one NFL franchise who would turn down those numbers. How many guys have produced 4 consecutive 1,500 yard seasons? Who doesn't want a productive, consistent work-horse back who takes the ball week after week, year after year and is infrequently injured. That type of production and dependability is what wins football games. It's called a franchise back. YPC? Statistics can be misleading. It's inherent in touching the ball that often that the average comes down. What's more important to an NFL team? A guy who can control the clock and the game or someone with gaudy YPC stats?I don't agree with your "complement RB B with another back" argument either. Isn't it just as valid to replace RB A with another back after 6 seasons? It takes the second back more than twice as many years (13 to just 6) to even approach RB A's yardage. Even then, he falls 1,400 yards short. Just 85% of RB A's production in more than twice as many years. Remember, you're also paying these guys.Too much stock in longevity... There is nothing special about RB B's last 7 years. Yes, his career yardage climbs, but who needs an oft injured player with 5-7 touches per game? If you compare their first 6 seasons, you'll find RB A outperfroms "B" to the tune of almost 3,700 yards. Each season he takes the ball 161 more times (10 touches per game) for 600 plus yards That's huge from an NFL (and fantasy) perspective. If you just look at the additional touches and the extra yardage, he is still producing at an incremental 3.81 YPC rate. Excellent production for that level of touches.Rush Yards Average Rush/Game Yards/Game348 1962 5.64 21.75 122.6313 1637 5.23 19.56 102.3339 1534 4.53 21.19 95.9372 1655 4.45 23.25 103.4339 1354 3.99 21.19 84.6339 1239 3.65 21.19 77.42050 9381 4.58Rush Yards Average Rush/Game Yards/Game221 1265 5.72 13.81 79.1205 1089 5.31 12.81 68.1182 964 5.30 11.38 60.3195 982 5.04 12.19 61.4192 911 4.74 12.00 56.987 485 5.57 5.44 30.31082 5696 5.26 968 3685 3.81 (delta) Chase, as a fantasy player or a fan, tell me honestly which guy do you want on your team?

 

[Despyzer]

If you're trying to compose an empirical value for a running back's worth, I don't think ignoring TDs is the way to do it.

 

[cobalt_27]

If you're trying to compose an empirical value for a running back's worth, I don't think ignoring TDs is the way to do it.

I think what Chase is trying to get at is, assuming all other things are equal (including TDs), what kind of yardage production would you want out of these two "types" of RBs.

 

[Despyzer]

If you're trying to compose an empirical value for a running back's worth, I don't think ignoring TDs is the way to do it.

I think what Chase is trying to get at is, assuming all other things are equal (including TDs), what kind of yardage production would you want out of these two "types" of RBs.

But at the same time he was trying to show how Brooks' career was not better than Tomlinson's despite what the numbers say. The easiest (and most obvious) way to correct this is to include a very meaningful stat for RBs that Tomlinson does as well or better than any RB that has ever played.

 

[cobalt_27]

If you're trying to compose an empirical value for a running back's worth, I don't think ignoring TDs is the way to do it.

I think what Chase is trying to get at is, assuming all other things are equal (including TDs), what kind of yardage production would you want out of these two "types" of RBs.

But at the same time he was trying to show how Brooks' career was not better than Tomlinson's despite what the numbers say. The easiest (and most obvious) way to correct this is to include a very meaningful stat for RBs that Tomlinson does as well or better than any RB that has ever played.

I dunno. I guess we're interpreting the intent of this exercise a little differently, then.

 

[Chase Stuart]

If you're trying to compose an empirical value for a running back's worth, I don't think ignoring TDs is the way to do it.

I think what Chase is trying to get at is, assuming all other things are equal (including TDs), what kind of yardage production would you want out of these two "types" of RBs.

But at the same time he was trying to show how Brooks' career was not better than Tomlinson's despite what the numbers say. The easiest (and most obvious) way to correct this is to include a very meaningful stat for RBs that Tomlinson does as well or better than any RB that has ever played.

I dunno. I guess we're interpreting the intent of this exercise a little differently, then.

Cobalt's right, this is just an exercise. Lots of times in economics, you assume lots of things which aren't equal, are equal, to solve a small problem first. Then we build on that.The question of which RB is better involves lots and small questions. Who was a better inside runner? Who was a better outside runner? Goal line runner? Pass catcher? Pass blocker? Leader? Teammate? Who played with a better QB? Who played with a better defense? Who had better blockers up front? Who played in a better system? Who played for a RBBC coach?There are countless questions which make the question of which RB was better, difficult. We all know Jim Brown was better than Curtis Martin, because it's not that close a question. When it is closer (say, Jim Brown vs. Barry Sanders), we typically just throw our hands up and guess.What I'm trying to do here is solve a very, very small problem, and move on from there. The question involves ignoring everything besides running back carries and running back yards, which group of statistics is better? It's simple in a way that it ignores all the questions I just asked; it's hard in that it's still difficult to answer the question. The tipping point/trade-off for more carries at a lower YPC average is not easy to answer, but I do think there is a solid answer. I'm just not sure what it is yet. My initial reaction was to use the league average RB YPC to replace every extra carry for one RB. But I'm not sure that is right.(BTW, TDs actually are factored in to the Tomlinson/Brooks example. That's why you'll notice that none of LT's yardage totals are his actual yardage totals.) Maybe the answer is Brooks' career actually is better. Maybe the answer involves giving a smaller boost to RBs with less carries (smaller than the league average), or maybe the answer involves giving a point per carry boost. I'm still tinkering with it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

YPC? Statistics can be misleading. It's inherent in touching the ball that often that the average comes down.

I don't believe this is true, and I'm certain you can't prove this to be true.

If you just look at the additional touches and the extra yardage, he is still producing at an incremental 3.81 YPC rate. Excellent production for that level of touches.

This is the source of our disagreement. I don't know any 3.81 YPC is anything but below average production. Why do you believe it to be excellent production?Lastly, even if you disagree with everything I've said, you'll acknolewdge that a higher YPC average is better than a lower one. From your post, it appears as though you value the number of carries for a RB very highly. But there has to be a point when they cross.So, let's get back to the algebra equation: RB A rushes 350 times for 1500 yards. RB B rushes 200 times. How many yards would RB B have to rush for, for you to think that both players provide the exact same amount of value to their teams?

 

[Chase Stuart]

It sounds like you're doing a gut version of the empirical analysis presented earlier -- which showed B won.

And once again, ignore the chronology. The years aren't listed in that order, but rather from best to worst.

Alright, admittedly, I read the first couple of posts and tried to address the question without being "tainted" by other analyses, such as what you did.So, now let me approach it this way:

Since, 2000, the average yards per rush has been 4.12, overall.

But, my thinking is that a decent amount of that is going to be contributed by the elite rushers who get the ball a lot. In order to address this question, we need some expectation of what the replacement RBs are going to do. So, if you remove the group that's in the top 10% in yearly rushes (anyone >252/yr), the average drops to what you suggested before: 4.0.

Now, it seems we can calculate an expected yearly rushing line for each RB and his replacement(s).

For starters, the average number of rushes per team = 442 per year (since 2000).

In (A)'s best year, his line was 348/1962. It's expected that that team would rush another 94 attempts (to get to 442) at 4.0 ypc. This adds another 376 yards to the team's total, which yields 2338 total yards for the year.

In (B)'s best year, his line was 221/1265. It's expected that the team would rush another 221 times at 4.0 ypc. This adds another 884 to the team's total, which yields 2149 total yards for that year.

And, you can do this for each season, of course.

Now, if the overall average YPC = 4.12, then every team should be expected to have 1827 rushing yards each year on an expected 442 carries (we'll call this the "league expected average" or "LEA"). What I did is subtract that rushing total (1827) from each of the 19 seasons between the two RBs (6 for (A) and 13 for (B)) and then added them up for each RB.

RB (A)'s team rushed for 827 yards over the LEA over the course of 6 years (138 yards/season):

Yearly Difference2338 - 1827 = 5112153 - 1827 = 3261946 - 1827 = 1191935 - 1827 = 1081766 - 1827 = -611651 - 1827 = -176SUM = 827RB (B)'s team rushed for only 442 yards over the LEA over 13 years (34 yards per year):

2149 - 1827 = 3222037 - 1827 = 2102004 - 1827 = 1771970 - 1827 = 1431911 - 1827 = 841905 - 1827 = 781852 - 1827 = 251753 - 1827 = -741752 - 1827 = -751749 - 1827 = -781734 - 1827 = -931708 - 1827 = -1191669 - 1827 = -158SUM = 442

By my way of thinking on this, the productivity over the LEA for the team with RB (A) was superior to the team's productivity who had RB (B).Even when you remove the "down" years for each RB and simply take the top-4 seasons for both backs, the team with RB (A) still has the superior set of seasons, rushing for 1064 yards (266+ per season) over the LEA. The team with RB (B) only outperformed the LEA by 852 yards (213+ per season).

Ultimately, I think it's this kind of analysis that gives us some expectations for team performance and we can compare those performances to expected league averages (based on data from 2000-2006). I can't imagine another way to really capture the output and productivity that these two teams are going to achieve. My central theme here is that, ultimately, we have to consider team performances, and that RBs (A) and (B) are simply contributors to their team's overall, respective output.

IMO, the team with RB (A) gets the better end of the deal.

Any critique of this methodology or the inferences made based on the data are always appreciated.

When I first read through this, it sounded interesting, but I couldn't figure out how you could come to a different result than I did. We both used the league average YPC, but you came to a different result. Then I remembered why.In an effort to keep this simple, I didn't use actual rushing yardage totals. The formula used was rushing yards + 12*rushing TDs = adjusted rushing yards. Then I divided adjusted rushing yards by actual number of carries, to get adjusted yards per carry. Then I subtracted the league average adjusted YPC, and multiplied that difference by the number of carries for each RB. That would then tell us how many adjusted yards above the league average, a specific RB provided in a given year.

The problem is, the league averages I used are higher than 4.00 or 4.12, because I'm using the adjusted yards. If instead of subtracting the league average adjusted yards per carry, I subtract 4.00 instead, Tomlinson now comes out ahead of Brooks. But this is simply lowering the baseline, which while may be what I end up doing, still has some issues with it. It rewards compilers a bit too much, as you lower the baseline. (If the baseline was 0, you'd be looking at a list of career rushing yards). To avoid the "Bettis problem", you want to have some baseline in there.

Another interesting thing is looking at YPC for all RBs. I looked at, for every season since 1960, the YPC (not adjusted) for all RB1s, RB2s, RB3s...RB11s for each team. RB1 was defined as the leader in rushing yards for the season, RB2 was second on the team in rushing yards, etc. It turns out that there's a small but noticeable decrease in YPC for RB2s (which you'd expect), but it jumps around a lot. This inconsistency makes it questionable for use as a baseline. It would make 1500 rushing yards on 300 carries worth a lot more in 2005 than in 2004, which I don't think is justifiable. On the other hand, I can't use just one number, because the eras are different.

As for your actual theory about adding in the adjusted rushing yards stuff, that's a bit problematic too. For starters, you're using rushes per team, not rushes by RB per team. That inflates the number of carries, which will require more league average carries for RBs with a small number of carries, and will ultimately penalize them too much.

I like how you're thinking, but I don't think this formula is going to do it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

One of the benefits I like from my current system is it ranks Gale Sayers 9th and Emmitt Smith 6th. You'll be hard pressed to find a system using career stats that ranks Sayers and Smith so highly. That's good. (And if you believe that Sayers was better than Smith, but Smith benefitted from a great OL, they aren't so far apart that anyone would say that's objectively unreasonable).

The bad stuff, if you can call it that, is the ranking of Priest Holmes and James Brooks, and Tomlinson being ranked so low. I won't even get into the really bad part of the system, which is how it ranks Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis and Eddie George.

 

[Chase Stuart]

So, let's get back to the algebra equation: RB A rushes 350 times for 1500 yards. RB B rushes 200 times. How many yards would RB B have to rush for, for you to think that both players provide the exact same amount of value to their teams?

And, I think I would answer this question with the following assumptions and equation:Assuming RB (A) and (B) are primary backs (more on that down below)

Average Rushes/Team/Year: 442

Average YPC (for secondary/tertiary backs): 4.0

The average team should rush for 1868 yards (per the 2000-2006 averages).

RB (A1): 350 for 1500 yards

RB (A2,3,4,etc.): 92 for 368

RB (B1): 200 for X yards

RB (B2,3,4,etc.): 242 for 968 yards (242 rushes x 4.0 ypc)

Team (A) should get a total of 1868 yards rushing (1500 yards + another 92 rushes at 4.0ypc).

Team (B) should somehow get a total > 1868 in order for RB (B1) to be "better than" RB (A1).

Equation:

{[(RBA1 Yards + RBA2,3 Yards) / (RBA1 Rushes + RBA2,3 Rushes)] - [(RBB1 Yards + RBB2,3 Yards) / (RBB1 Rushes + RBB2,3 Rushes)]} = 0

{[(1500 + 368) / (350 + 92)] - [(X + 968) / (200 + 242)]} = 0

[1868/442] - [(X + 968)/442] = 0

4.23 = [(X + 968)/442]

4.23 x 442 = X + 968

1868 = X + 968

900 = X

Solving for X, RB (B1) should have better than 4.5 ypc in this case. Meaning, he should rush 200 times for 900 yards. And, I wouldn't say here that B1 is better than A1. What I would feel confident in saying, however, is that RB (B1)'s contributions to his team are greater than RB (A1)s contributions, all other things being equal.

That's how I would solve this.

(Note: I feel comfortable with this so long as a certain N for rushes is achieved. I'm not sure what that N is. But, I don't know if true value is going to be acting linearly at extreme ends of the rushing curve--particularly for the lower-end contributors (say for RBs who rush < 100 times in a season). For instance, if Team © had 2 running backs who contributed 1500 yards on 400 carries, and one of their RBs contributed the other 368 yards on 42 carries (remember, we're trying to keep 442/1868 constant here) for an average of 8.76 ypc, I still wouldn't say he's contributing "more" than RB (A1) and RB (B1) that we've been discussing up to this point.

Interesting stuff. I've been assuming the the value added is linear, and I agree it may not be at extreme ends of the curve. But I think we'd both agree that it's harder to find a RB to average 8.8 YPC on 42 carries than it is to find a RB to average 3.75 YPC on 200 carries, so maybe the linear curve fits well after all.BTW, your answer of 900 is "correct" in the sense that it's the same as in post 26 (http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=308291#). There despyzer said he thought the small increase in YPC wasn't enough to offset the large number of carries. Here we've got an increase in YPC of 0.21, at an expense of 150 carries. You and I might think that's appropriate, but I can see how other people would say that's not.

(As for being a , here's how I solved for X, which I think is a bit quicker. 1500/350 = 4.28; 4.28 - 4.00 = 0.28. 0.28 * 350 = 100. 200 carries * 4.00 = 800. 800 + 100 = 900 = X.)

Perhaps I should just post the RB ranking list and see what people think? I've got slightly more faith in the single season list than the career list, so let me post what my system spits out as the greatest 6 rushing seasons since 1957:

Player Year Rsh Yard TD AYPC LYPC VALUEBarry Sanders 1997 335 2053 11 6.52 4.34 732Jim Brown 1963 291 1863 12 6.90 4.44 716O.J. Simpson 1973 332 2003 12 6.47 4.31 715Walter Payton 1977 339 1852 14 5.96 4.12 624Barry Sanders 1994 331 1883 7 5.94 4.07 619Eric Dickerson 1984 379 2105 14 6.00 4.41 602AYPC = Adjusted Yards Per Carry (Adjusted Yards = Rushing Yards + Rushing TDs * 12)LYPC = League Adjusted Yards Per Carry

I feel reasonably confident that those are the best six rushing seasons, statistically, of all time.

For fun, here are the worst six seasons of all time, listed from worst to best.

Player			Year	Rsh	Yard	TD	AYPC	LYPC	VALUEEddie George	  2001	315	 939	 5	3.17	4.35	-370Jonathan Wells	2002	197	 529	 3	2.87	4.53	-327Eddie George	  2003	312	1031	 5	3.50	4.52	-320Harold Green	  1993	215	 589	 0	2.74	4.20	-313Lamar Smith	   2001	313	 968	 6	3.32	4.35	-320Edgerrin James	2006	337	1159	 6	3.65	4.54	-300

 

[cobalt_27]

Interesting stuff. I've been assuming the the value added is linear, and I agree it may not be at extreme ends of the curve. But I think we'd both agree that it's harder to find a RB to average 8.8 YPC on 42 carries than it is to find a RB to average 3.75 YPC on 200 carries, so maybe the linear curve fits well after all.

BTW, your answer of 900 is "correct" in the sense that it's the same as in post 26 (http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=308291#). There despyzer said he thought the small increase in YPC wasn't enough to offset the large number of carries. Here we've got an increase in YPC of 0.21, at an expense of 150 carries. You and I might think that's appropriate, but I can see how other people would say that's not.

(As for being a , here's how I solved for X, which I think is a bit quicker. 1500/350 = 4.28; 4.28 - 4.00 = 0.28. 0.28 * 350 = 100. 200 carries * 4.00 = 800. 800 + 100 = 900 = X.)

Perhaps I should just post the RB ranking list and see what people think? I've got slightly more faith in the single season list than the career list, so let me post what my system spits out as the greatest 6 rushing seasons since 1957:

Player Year Rsh Yard TD AYPC LYPC VALUEBarry Sanders 1997 335 2053 11 6.52 4.34 732Jim Brown 1963 291 1863 12 6.90 4.44 716O.J. Simpson 1973 332 2003 12 6.47 4.31 715Walter Payton 1977 339 1852 14 5.96 4.12 624Barry Sanders 1994 331 1883 7 5.94 4.07 619Eric Dickerson 1984 379 2105 14 6.00 4.41 602AYPC = Adjusted Yards Per Carry (Adjusted Yards = Rushing Yards + Rushing TDs * 12)LYPC = League Adjusted Yards Per Carry

I feel reasonably confident that those are the best six rushing seasons, statistically, of all time.

For fun, here are the worst six seasons of all time, listed from worst to best.

Player			Year	Rsh	Yard	TD	AYPC	LYPC	VALUEEddie George	  2001	315	 939	 5	3.17	4.35	-370Jonathan Wells	2002	197	 529	 3	2.87	4.53	-327Eddie George	  2003	312	1031	 5	3.50	4.52	-320Harold Green	  1993	215	 589	 0	2.74	4.20	-313Lamar Smith	   2001	313	 968	 6	3.32	4.35	-320Edgerrin James	2006	337	1159	 6	3.65	4.54	-300

That's pretty cool. I need to rethink this a little bit. The equation I submitted is, I think, close...but, I have a circular problem that needs to be addressed in that it makes it into a glorified YPC equation. I saved the post for a possible repost after some reworking, but in the mean-time, I deleted it.

 

[DropKick]

YPC? Statistics can be misleading. It's inherent in touching the ball that often that the average comes down.

I don't believe this is true, and I'm certain you can't prove this to be true.

If you just look at the additional touches and the extra yardage, he is still producing at an incremental 3.81 YPC rate. Excellent production for that level of touches.

This is the source of our disagreement. I don't know any 3.81 YPC is anything but below average production. Why do you believe it to be excellent production?Lastly, even if you disagree with everything I've said, you'll acknolewdge that a higher YPC average is better than a lower one. From your post, it appears as though you value the number of carries for a RB very highly. But there has to be a point when they cross.So, let's get back to the algebra equation: RB A rushes 350 times for 1500 yards. RB B rushes 200 times. How many yards would RB B have to rush for, for you to think that both players provide the exact same amount of value to their teams?

A work horse back, who touches the ball 25 times a game, will get the ball in short yardage, end-of-game and other obvious rushing situations. Times when the defense knows the rush is coming. Its fairly obvious its far more difficult to sustain a high "per carry" average" over many touches as it is to have an inflated average with fewer touches. If you can't see that on your own... well, so be it.Using your logic taken to an extreme their "best back" is the WR who rushes for 11 yards on a reverse, his ONLY carry of the season. So to refute your second point; a higher YPC is not necessarily better than a lower one.I don't simply value "number of carries". It is what those carries imply. First, you have a consistent and durable back who is also highly productive. You also are able to control the clock and subsequently the game. Its also safe to assume with those additional touches comes a proportional increase in TDs.Value? You're advocating a RBBC where I NEED another back to complement RB B. I don't need another guy with RB A.You don't know excellent numbers when you make them up. The 3.8 average is just what RB A does above and beyond B's production. Would anyone consider this career anything but excellent? Rush Yards Avg Career Rush Career Yards Career Avg348 1,962 5.64 348 1,962 5.64313 1,637 5.23 661 3,599 5.44339 1,534 4.53 1000 5,133 5.13372 1,655 4.45 1372 6,788 4.95339 1,354 3.99 1711 8,142 4.76339 1,239 3.65 2050 9,381 4.58

 

[Chase Stuart]

YPC? Statistics can be misleading. It's inherent in touching the ball that often that the average comes down.

I don't believe this is true, and I'm certain you can't prove this to be true.

If you just look at the additional touches and the extra yardage, he is still producing at an incremental 3.81 YPC rate. Excellent production for that level of touches.

This is the source of our disagreement. I don't know any 3.81 YPC is anything but below average production. Why do you believe it to be excellent production?Lastly, even if you disagree with everything I've said, you'll acknolewdge that a higher YPC average is better than a lower one. From your post, it appears as though you value the number of carries for a RB very highly. But there has to be a point when they cross.

So, let's get back to the algebra equation: RB A rushes 350 times for 1500 yards. RB B rushes 200 times. How many yards would RB B have to rush for, for you to think that both players provide the exact same amount of value to their teams?

A work horse back, who touches the ball 25 times a game, will get the ball in short yardage, end-of-game and other obvious rushing situations. Times when the defense knows the rush is coming. Its fairly obvious its far more difficult to sustain a high "per carry" average" over many touches as it is to have an inflated average with fewer touches. If you can't see that on your own... well, so be it.Using your logic taken to an extreme their "best back" is the WR who rushes for 11 yards on a reverse, his ONLY carry of the season. So to refute your second point; a higher YPC is not necessarily better than a lower one.

I don't simply value "number of carries". It is what those carries imply. First, you have a consistent and durable back who is also highly productive. You also are able to control the clock and subsequently the game. Its also safe to assume with those additional touches comes a proportional increase in TDs.

Value? You're advocating a RBBC where I NEED another back to complement RB B. I don't need another guy with RB A.

You don't know excellent numbers when you make them up. The 3.8 average is just what RB A does above and beyond B's production. Would anyone consider this career anything but excellent?

Rush Yards Avg Career Rush Career Yards Career Avg

348 1,962 5.64 348 1,962 5.64

313 1,637 5.23 661 3,599 5.44

339 1,534 4.53 1000 5,133 5.13

372 1,655 4.45 1372 6,788 4.95

339 1,354 3.99 1711 8,142 4.76

339 1,239 3.65 2050 9,381 4.58

Regarding your point about workhorse backs, here's something I wrote a few months ago. If you don't feel like clicking the link, here's the key part:

You’ll hear this argument a lot: it’s easy to record a high YPC if you don’t have many carries. Maybe they don’t really mean easy, but at least easier. But just because people say it, doesn’t make it true. It’s undoubtedly true that it is easier to get all sorts of extreme YPC numbers with a small number of carries, and that includes really high (and really low) YPC averages. And RBs that are running well usually get more carries going forward than runners that don’t do so well. So what do the numbers say?

Carries 2002 2003 2004 200501-50 3.92 3.75 4.01 3.3451-100 4.34 3.86 4.18 4.15101-150 3.93 4.26 4.11 3.78151-200 3.88 3.97 4.17 3.87201-250 3.94 4.11 4.11 3.97251-300 4.28 4.48 4.19 4.14301+ 4.41 4.43 4.36 4.49Average 4.15 4.18 4.19 4.07

The RBs with the fewest carries also have the lowest yards per carry average. Now be careful. This does not mean that it’s harder for RBs with fewer carries to obtain a high YPC average. It just means that RBs with fewer carries also tend to average fewer yards per carry.

Yes, a "workhorse" RB will get lots of carries at the ends of games, but isn't the theory behind this that the defense should be weak by then? Why do we assume his numbers will go down? Frank Gore averaged 6.0 YPC in the 4th quarter last season. Steven Jackson 5.2. Ahman Green 5.0. I don't think your assumption that it's easy to have a high YPC average over a larger number of touches is all that clear. I think it's easy to have a higher YPC average than your actual ability over a smaller number of touches, but that's fixed in my formula by multiplying by number of carries.Your example of a WR reverse for 11 yards bolsters my point, not refutes it. One carry for 11 yards would give you 7 points of value for the season. (11 YPC - 4 YPC = 7 YPC, multiplied by 1 carry). 300 carries for 4.4 YPC would give you 120 points of value. You can't stop at 11 YPC > 4.4 YPC, but rather at 120 points > 7 points.

I consider RB A's career to be excellent, but I also consider RB B's career to be excellent.

I'm still waiting to solve the key question here; what is the equivalent number of rushing yards on 200 carries, to 1500 rushing yards on 350 carries? What would make them equal in your mind -- i.e., how many yards does the 200 carry back need to be equal in value to the "workhorse" back?

 

[DropKick]

OK, Its clear now where your numbers come from.

Rushing

Year Team G GS Att Yds Avg Lg TD 20+ 1st

2001 San Diego Chargers 16 16 339 1236 3.6 54 10 7 67

2002 San Diego Chargers 16 16 372 1683 4.5 76 14 12 90

2003 San Diego Chargers 16 16 313 1645 5.3 73 13 12 81

2004 San Diego Chargers 15 15 339 1335 3.9 42 17 6 68

2005 San Diego Chargers 16 16 339 1462 4.3 62 18 8 71

2006 San Diego Chargers 16 16 348 1815 5.2 85 28 12 81

TOTAL 95 95 2050 9176 4.5 85 100 57 458

Anybody lobbying for the Bolt's to back down LT's touches to improved his YPC?

Thing your missing is his passing stats. Looks to me like he is the best QB to ever play the game too! 6 TDs in 10 attempts. I imagine that average will drop too with a few more... ahem "attempts".

Passing

Year Team G GS Att Comp Pct Yds YPA Lg TD Int Tkld 20+ 40+ Rate

2001 San Diego Chargers 16 16 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0 0 0/0 0 0 ---

2002 San Diego Chargers 16 16 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0 0 0/0 0 0 ---

2003 San Diego Chargers 16 16 1 1 100.0 21 21.00 21 1 0 0/0 1 0 158.3

2004 San Diego Chargers 15 15 2 1 50.0 38 19.00 38 0 0 1/1 1 0 95.8

2005 San Diego Chargers 16 16 4 3 75.0 47 11.75 26 3 0 0/0 1 0 153.1

2006 San Diego Chargers 16 16 3 2 66.7 20 6.67 19 2 0 0/0 0 0 125.0

TOTAL 95 95 10 7 70.0 126 12.60 38 6 0 1/1 3 0 152.1

 

[Chase Stuart]

Anybody lobbying for the Bolt's to back down LT's touches to improved his YPC?Thing your missing is his passing stats. Looks to me like he is the best QB to ever play the game too! 6 TDs in 10 attempts. I imagine that average will drop too with a few more... ahem "attempts".

I'm sorry, but you're not making much sense any more. I'd suggest you to re-read what I wrote before if you are trying to re-state my position (which I think you're trying to sarcasticaly do).

 

[DropKick]

YPC? Statistics can be misleading. It's inherent in touching the ball that often that the average comes down.

I don't believe this is true, and I'm certain you can't prove this to be true.

If you just look at the additional touches and the extra yardage, he is still producing at an incremental 3.81 YPC rate. Excellent production for that level of touches.

This is the source of our disagreement. I don't know any 3.81 YPC is anything but below average production. Why do you believe it to be excellent production?Lastly, even if you disagree with everything I've said, you'll acknolewdge that a higher YPC average is better than a lower one. From your post, it appears as though you value the number of carries for a RB very highly. But there has to be a point when they cross.So, let's get back to the algebra equation: RB A rushes 350 times for 1500 yards. RB B rushes 200 times. How many yards would RB B have to rush for, for you to think that both players provide the exact same amount of value to their teams?

A work horse back, who touches the ball 25 times a game, will get the ball in short yardage, end-of-game and other obvious rushing situations. Times when the defense knows the rush is coming. Its fairly obvious its far more difficult to sustain a high "per carry" average" over many touches as it is to have an inflated average with fewer touches. If you can't see that on your own... well, so be it.Using your logic taken to an extreme their "best back" is the WR who rushes for 11 yards on a reverse, his ONLY carry of the season. So to refute your second point; a higher YPC is not necessarily better than a lower one.I don't simply value "number of carries". It is what those carries imply. First, you have a consistent and durable back who is also highly productive. You also are able to control the clock and subsequently the game. Its also safe to assume with those additional touches comes a proportional increase in TDs.Value? You're advocating a RBBC where I NEED another back to complement RB B. I don't need another guy with RB A.You don't know excellent numbers when you make them up. The 3.8 average is just what RB A does above and beyond B's production. Would anyone consider this career anything but excellent? Rush Yards Avg Career Rush Career Yards Career Avg348 1,962 5.64 348 1,962 5.64313 1,637 5.23 661 3,599 5.44339 1,534 4.53 1000 5,133 5.13372 1,655 4.45 1372 6,788 4.95339 1,354 3.99 1711 8,142 4.76339 1,239 3.65 2050 9,381 4.58

Regarding your point about workhorse backs, here's something I wrote a few months ago. If you don't feel like clicking the link, here's the key part:

You’ll hear this argument a lot: it’s easy to record a high YPC if you don’t have many carries. Maybe they don’t really mean easy, but at least easier. But just because people say it, doesn’t make it true. It’s undoubtedly true that it is easier to get all sorts of extreme YPC numbers with a small number of carries, and that includes really high (and really low) YPC averages. And RBs that are running well usually get more carries going forward than runners that don’t do so well. So what do the numbers say?

Carries 2002 2003 2004 200501-50 3.92 3.75 4.01 3.3451-100 4.34 3.86 4.18 4.15101-150 3.93 4.26 4.11 3.78151-200 3.88 3.97 4.17 3.87201-250 3.94 4.11 4.11 3.97251-300 4.28 4.48 4.19 4.14301+ 4.41 4.43 4.36 4.49Average 4.15 4.18 4.19 4.07

The RBs with the fewest carries also have the lowest yards per carry average. Now be careful. This does not mean that it’s harder for RBs with fewer carries to obtain a high YPC average. It just means that RBs with fewer carries also tend to average fewer yards per carry.

Yes, a "workhorse" RB will get lots of carries at the ends of games, but isn't the theory behind this that the defense should be weak by then? Why do we assume his numbers will go down? Frank Gore averaged 6.0 YPC in the 4th quarter last season. Steven Jackson 5.2. Ahman Green 5.0. I don't think your assumption that it's easy to have a high YPC average over a larger number of touches is all that clear. I think it's easy to have a higher YPC average than your actual ability over a smaller number of touches, but that's fixed in my formula by multiplying by number of carries.Your example of a WR reverse for 11 yards bolsters my point, not refutes it. One carry for 11 yards would give you 7 points of value for the season. (11 YPC - 4 YPC = 7 YPC, multiplied by 1 carry). 300 carries for 4.4 YPC would give you 120 points of value. You can't stop at 11 YPC > 4.4 YPC, but rather at 120 points > 7 points.I consider RB A's career to be excellent, but I also consider RB B's career to be excellent. I'm still waiting to solve the key question here; what is the equivalent number of rushing yards on 200 carries, to 1500 rushing yards on 350 carries? What would make them equal in your mind -- i.e., how many yards does the 200 carry back need to be equal in value to the "workhorse" back?

Not just a matter of D's being tired. Goal line and other short yardage situations dictate that 1 yard is a success and that is how the play is designed. Some backs, as a matter of style, even hold the ball more conservatively, when in clock killing mode. Success is in keeping posession and moving chains. There are times, when a guy busts through the line and the defense is geared to stopping the short yardage play, that a long run is broken. I'm not a proponent of "take away the big play" thinking but it is legitimate that sometimes game situations matter and one long run inflates an average.To anwer your question.. 1,100 yards on 200 carries.

 

[Chase Stuart]

YPC? Statistics can be misleading. It's inherent in touching the ball that often that the average comes down.

I don't believe this is true, and I'm certain you can't prove this to be true.

If you just look at the additional touches and the extra yardage, he is still producing at an incremental 3.81 YPC rate. Excellent production for that level of touches.

This is the source of our disagreement. I don't know any 3.81 YPC is anything but below average production. Why do you believe it to be excellent production?Lastly, even if you disagree with everything I've said, you'll acknolewdge that a higher YPC average is better than a lower one. From your post, it appears as though you value the number of carries for a RB very highly. But there has to be a point when they cross.So, let's get back to the algebra equation: RB A rushes 350 times for 1500 yards. RB B rushes 200 times. How many yards would RB B have to rush for, for you to think that both players provide the exact same amount of value to their teams?

A work horse back, who touches the ball 25 times a game, will get the ball in short yardage, end-of-game and other obvious rushing situations. Times when the defense knows the rush is coming. Its fairly obvious its far more difficult to sustain a high "per carry" average" over many touches as it is to have an inflated average with fewer touches. If you can't see that on your own... well, so be it.Using your logic taken to an extreme their "best back" is the WR who rushes for 11 yards on a reverse, his ONLY carry of the season. So to refute your second point; a higher YPC is not necessarily better than a lower one.I don't simply value "number of carries". It is what those carries imply. First, you have a consistent and durable back who is also highly productive. You also are able to control the clock and subsequently the game. Its also safe to assume with those additional touches comes a proportional increase in TDs.Value? You're advocating a RBBC where I NEED another back to complement RB B. I don't need another guy with RB A.You don't know excellent numbers when you make them up. The 3.8 average is just what RB A does above and beyond B's production. Would anyone consider this career anything but excellent? Rush Yards Avg Career Rush Career Yards Career Avg348 1,962 5.64 348 1,962 5.64313 1,637 5.23 661 3,599 5.44339 1,534 4.53 1000 5,133 5.13372 1,655 4.45 1372 6,788 4.95339 1,354 3.99 1711 8,142 4.76339 1,239 3.65 2050 9,381 4.58

Regarding your point about workhorse backs, here's something I wrote a few months ago. If you don't feel like clicking the link, here's the key part:

You’ll hear this argument a lot: it’s easy to record a high YPC if you don’t have many carries. Maybe they don’t really mean easy, but at least easier. But just because people say it, doesn’t make it true. It’s undoubtedly true that it is easier to get all sorts of extreme YPC numbers with a small number of carries, and that includes really high (and really low) YPC averages. And RBs that are running well usually get more carries going forward than runners that don’t do so well. So what do the numbers say?

Carries 2002 2003 2004 200501-50 3.92 3.75 4.01 3.3451-100 4.34 3.86 4.18 4.15101-150 3.93 4.26 4.11 3.78151-200 3.88 3.97 4.17 3.87201-250 3.94 4.11 4.11 3.97251-300 4.28 4.48 4.19 4.14301+ 4.41 4.43 4.36 4.49Average 4.15 4.18 4.19 4.07

The RBs with the fewest carries also have the lowest yards per carry average. Now be careful. This does not mean that it’s harder for RBs with fewer carries to obtain a high YPC average. It just means that RBs with fewer carries also tend to average fewer yards per carry.

Yes, a "workhorse" RB will get lots of carries at the ends of games, but isn't the theory behind this that the defense should be weak by then? Why do we assume his numbers will go down? Frank Gore averaged 6.0 YPC in the 4th quarter last season. Steven Jackson 5.2. Ahman Green 5.0. I don't think your assumption that it's easy to have a high YPC average over a larger number of touches is all that clear. I think it's easy to have a higher YPC average than your actual ability over a smaller number of touches, but that's fixed in my formula by multiplying by number of carries.Your example of a WR reverse for 11 yards bolsters my point, not refutes it. One carry for 11 yards would give you 7 points of value for the season. (11 YPC - 4 YPC = 7 YPC, multiplied by 1 carry). 300 carries for 4.4 YPC would give you 120 points of value. You can't stop at 11 YPC > 4.4 YPC, but rather at 120 points > 7 points.I consider RB A's career to be excellent, but I also consider RB B's career to be excellent. I'm still waiting to solve the key question here; what is the equivalent number of rushing yards on 200 carries, to 1500 rushing yards on 350 carries? What would make them equal in your mind -- i.e., how many yards does the 200 carry back need to be equal in value to the "workhorse" back?

Not just a matter of D's being tired. Goal line and other short yardage situations dictate that 1 yard is a success and that is how the play is designed. Some backs, as a matter of style, even hold the ball more conservatively, when in clock killing mode. Success is in keeping posession and moving chains. There are times, when a guy busts through the line and the defense is geared to stopping the short yardage play, that a long run is broken. I'm not a proponent of "take away the big play" thinking but it is legitimate that sometimes game situations matter and one long run inflates an average.To anwer your question.. 1,100 yards on 200 carries.

Thanks.My system gives 13 points for a 1 yard TD, so goal line backs certainly aren't harmed by this. Even if they take 3 tries to get in from the 3 yard line, they'd be credited with 5.00 YPC -- I think that's pretty fair.I'm not sure where you're going with the long run theory, because that should help the workhorse backs which you feel are being unfairly penalized.As for the 1100 on 200 carries, that's 5.5 YPC. 1500 yards on 350 carries in 4.3 YPC. Now I'm not saying you're wrong (because I don't know the answer), but that is a bit surprising to me. Where did you get that number from? It seems like finding a collection of runners to rush 150 times for 400 yards is extremely easy, even if you're on the Browns. I'd imagine a team with an 1100/200 carry guy is likely to have a better winning percentage than a team with a 1500/350 guy for that reason.

 

[DropKick]

Anybody lobbying for the Bolt's to back down LT's touches to improved his YPC?Thing your missing is his passing stats. Looks to me like he is the best QB to ever play the game too! 6 TDs in 10 attempts. I imagine that average will drop too with a few more... ahem "attempts".

I'm sorry, but you're not making much sense any more. I'd suggest you to re-read what I wrote before if you are trying to re-state my position (which I think you're trying to sarcasticaly do).

Not being sarcastic at all. LT's career passser rating is 152.1. The basis of your argument is "production per touch". I'm trying to look at the full value the player brings to the game; including ball control and game management. I think every NFL coach would take a player who can take the ball that often with that level production of a guy who touches the ball half as often.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The basis of your argument is "production per touch".

No it isn't. It's production per touch above average multiplied by number of touches. That's a significant difference.

 

[DropKick]

YPC? Statistics can be misleading. It's inherent in touching the ball that often that the average comes down.

I don't believe this is true, and I'm certain you can't prove this to be true.

If you just look at the additional touches and the extra yardage, he is still producing at an incremental 3.81 YPC rate. Excellent production for that level of touches.

This is the source of our disagreement. I don't know any 3.81 YPC is anything but below average production. Why do you believe it to be excellent production?Lastly, even if you disagree with everything I've said, you'll acknolewdge that a higher YPC average is better than a lower one. From your post, it appears as though you value the number of carries for a RB very highly. But there has to be a point when they cross.So, let's get back to the algebra equation: RB A rushes 350 times for 1500 yards. RB B rushes 200 times. How many yards would RB B have to rush for, for you to think that both players provide the exact same amount of value to their teams?

A work horse back, who touches the ball 25 times a game, will get the ball in short yardage, end-of-game and other obvious rushing situations. Times when the defense knows the rush is coming. Its fairly obvious its far more difficult to sustain a high "per carry" average" over many touches as it is to have an inflated average with fewer touches. If you can't see that on your own... well, so be it.Using your logic taken to an extreme their "best back" is the WR who rushes for 11 yards on a reverse, his ONLY carry of the season. So to refute your second point; a higher YPC is not necessarily better than a lower one.I don't simply value "number of carries". It is what those carries imply. First, you have a consistent and durable back who is also highly productive. You also are able to control the clock and subsequently the game. Its also safe to assume with those additional touches comes a proportional increase in TDs.Value? You're advocating a RBBC where I NEED another back to complement RB B. I don't need another guy with RB A.You don't know excellent numbers when you make them up. The 3.8 average is just what RB A does above and beyond B's production. Would anyone consider this career anything but excellent? Rush Yards Avg Career Rush Career Yards Career Avg348 1,962 5.64 348 1,962 5.64313 1,637 5.23 661 3,599 5.44339 1,534 4.53 1000 5,133 5.13372 1,655 4.45 1372 6,788 4.95339 1,354 3.99 1711 8,142 4.76339 1,239 3.65 2050 9,381 4.58

Regarding your point about workhorse backs, here's something I wrote a few months ago. If you don't feel like clicking the link, here's the key part:

You’ll hear this argument a lot: it’s easy to record a high YPC if you don’t have many carries. Maybe they don’t really mean easy, but at least easier. But just because people say it, doesn’t make it true. It’s undoubtedly true that it is easier to get all sorts of extreme YPC numbers with a small number of carries, and that includes really high (and really low) YPC averages. And RBs that are running well usually get more carries going forward than runners that don’t do so well. So what do the numbers say?

Carries 2002 2003 2004 200501-50 3.92 3.75 4.01 3.3451-100 4.34 3.86 4.18 4.15101-150 3.93 4.26 4.11 3.78151-200 3.88 3.97 4.17 3.87201-250 3.94 4.11 4.11 3.97251-300 4.28 4.48 4.19 4.14301+ 4.41 4.43 4.36 4.49Average 4.15 4.18 4.19 4.07

The RBs with the fewest carries also have the lowest yards per carry average. Now be careful. This does not mean that it’s harder for RBs with fewer carries to obtain a high YPC average. It just means that RBs with fewer carries also tend to average fewer yards per carry.

Yes, a "workhorse" RB will get lots of carries at the ends of games, but isn't the theory behind this that the defense should be weak by then? Why do we assume his numbers will go down? Frank Gore averaged 6.0 YPC in the 4th quarter last season. Steven Jackson 5.2. Ahman Green 5.0. I don't think your assumption that it's easy to have a high YPC average over a larger number of touches is all that clear. I think it's easy to have a higher YPC average than your actual ability over a smaller number of touches, but that's fixed in my formula by multiplying by number of carries.Your example of a WR reverse for 11 yards bolsters my point, not refutes it. One carry for 11 yards would give you 7 points of value for the season. (11 YPC - 4 YPC = 7 YPC, multiplied by 1 carry). 300 carries for 4.4 YPC would give you 120 points of value. You can't stop at 11 YPC > 4.4 YPC, but rather at 120 points > 7 points.I consider RB A's career to be excellent, but I also consider RB B's career to be excellent. I'm still waiting to solve the key question here; what is the equivalent number of rushing yards on 200 carries, to 1500 rushing yards on 350 carries? What would make them equal in your mind -- i.e., how many yards does the 200 carry back need to be equal in value to the "workhorse" back?

Not just a matter of D's being tired. Goal line and other short yardage situations dictate that 1 yard is a success and that is how the play is designed. Some backs, as a matter of style, even hold the ball more conservatively, when in clock killing mode. Success is in keeping posession and moving chains. There are times, when a guy busts through the line and the defense is geared to stopping the short yardage play, that a long run is broken. I'm not a proponent of "take away the big play" thinking but it is legitimate that sometimes game situations matter and one long run inflates an average.To anwer your question.. 1,100 yards on 200 carries.

Thanks.My system gives 13 points for a 1 yard TD, so goal line backs certainly aren't harmed by this. Even if they take 3 tries to get in from the 3 yard line, they'd be credited with 5.00 YPC -- I think that's pretty fair.I'm not sure where you're going with the long run theory, because that should help the workhorse backs which you feel are being unfairly penalized.As for the 1100 on 200 carries, that's 5.5 YPC. 1500 yards on 350 carries in 4.3 YPC. Now I'm not saying you're wrong (because I don't know the answer), but that is a bit surprising to me. Where did you get that number from? It seems like finding a collection of runners to rush 150 times for 400 yards is extremely easy, even if you're on the Browns. I'd imagine a team with an 1100/200 carry guy is likely to have a better winning percentage than a team with a 1500/350 guy for that reason.

I know its a significantly higher average. Purely subjective. I favor a guy who can take the ball, week in and week out, and produce against even the better defenses. There have been smallish backs, with break away ability who put up nice per carry averages (Say, a Napoleon Kaufman). They suffer from inconsistency and can be shut down by the better D's. Give me a guy I can build the team around before a guy I have to supplement with a stable of other backs.For the record, here are Napoleon's career numbers: Not bad.. but not franchise either. +--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1995 oak | 16 | 108 490 4.5 1 | 9 62 6.9 0 || 1996 oak | 16 | 150 874 5.8 1 | 22 143 6.5 1 || 1997 oak | 16 | 272 1294 4.8 6 | 40 403 10.1 2 || 1998 oak | 13 | 217 921 4.2 2 | 25 191 7.6 0 || 1999 oak | 16 | 138 714 5.2 2 | 18 181 10.1 1 || 2000 oak | 14 | 93 499 5.4 0 | 13 127 9.8 1 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| TOTAL | 91 | 978 4792 4.9 12 | 127 1107 8.7 5 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+Here is the game by game production for his "busiest" season - 1997. Some huge "per carry" games but he could also disappear.+----------+-------------+--------+----+| WK OPP | RSH YD | RECYD | TD |+----------+-------------+--------+----+| 1 ten | 12 32 | 21 | 0 || 2 kan | 22 84 | 34 | 1 || 3 atl | 14 140 | 26 | 2 || 4 nyj | 27 126 | 32 | 0 || 5 stl | 26 162 | -1 | 1 || 6 sdg | 11 13 | 100 | 1 || 8 den | 28 227 | 0 | 1 || 9 sea | 17 112 | 0 | 1 || 10 car | 10 16 | 70 | 1 || 11 nor | 15 14 | 23 | 0 || 12 sdg | 20 109 | 35 | 0 || 13 den | 13 53 | 5 | 0 || 14 mia | 12 69 | 32 | 0 || 15 kan | 8 7 | 0 | 0 || 16 sea | 16 36 | 15 | 0 || 17 jax | 21 94 | 11 | 0 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+| TOTAL | 272 1294 | 403 | 8 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+

 

[Chase Stuart]

I know its a significantly higher average. Purely subjective. I favor a guy who can take the ball, week in and week out, and produce against even the better defenses. There have been smallish backs, with break away ability who put up nice per carry averages (Say, a Napoleon Kaufman). They suffer from inconsistency and can be shut down by the better D's. Give me a guy I can build the team around before a guy I have to supplement with a stable of other backs.

Who is your favorite team? Let's say it's the Patriots. If I told you before the season began you could have Laurence Maroney rush 200 times for 1,000 yards, or Laurence Maroney rush 350 times for 1500 yards, which would you pick? Now you're not worried about inconsistency or being shut down by better Ds, because these numbers are etched in stone. And obviously NE will run the ball more than 350 times, so you'll have some number of extra carries by other RBs, and 150 + that same number by other RBs if you choose the first option.If it was me, I'd pick the first one. I'd be confident that Maroney getting 1000 yards on 200 carries would put my team in a better chance to win than getting 350 carries for 1500 yards. If New England runs 400 times, we'd have to expect the other RBs to average fewer than 3.350 YPC for the situations to be equal. (If the RBs averaged exactly 3.35, in situation 1, the Patriots would have 1670 rushing yards; in scenario 2, the Patriots would have 1667.5 yards.)

 

[DropKick]

I know its a significantly higher average. Purely subjective. I favor a guy who can take the ball, week in and week out, and produce against even the better defenses. There have been smallish backs, with break away ability who put up nice per carry averages (Say, a Napoleon Kaufman). They suffer from inconsistency and can be shut down by the better D's. Give me a guy I can build the team around before a guy I have to supplement with a stable of other backs.

Who is your favorite team? Let's say it's the Patriots. If I told you before the season began you could have Laurence Maroney rush 200 times for 1,000 yards, or Laurence Maroney rush 350 times for 1500 yards, which would you pick? Now you're not worried about inconsistency or being shut down by better Ds, because these numbers are etched in stone. And obviously NE will run the ball more than 350 times, so you'll have some number of extra carries by other RBs, and 150 + that same number by other RBs if you choose the first option.If it was me, I'd pick the first one. I'd be confident that Maroney getting 1000 yards on 200 carries would put my team in a better chance to win than getting 350 carries for 1500 yards. If New England runs 400 times, we'd have to expect the other RBs to average fewer than 3.350 YPC for the situations to be equal. (If the RBs averaged exactly 3.35, in situation 1, the Patriots would have 1670 rushing yards; in scenario 2, the Patriots would have 1667.5 yards.)

Its the Dolphins...But, in this particular example, I agree with you. With Maroney being a rookie and not necessarily accustomed to the NFL load... and the presence of Dillon, I would take the 1,000 yards.Of course, if Maroney could have run the ball and killed the clock in the AFC Championship game... ah, the value of that kind of back!Next season I might change my mind as the situation will be not be so "transitional".

 

[Chase Stuart]

YPC? Statistics can be misleading. It's inherent in touching the ball that often that the average comes down.

I don't believe this is true, and I'm certain you can't prove this to be true.

If you just look at the additional touches and the extra yardage, he is still producing at an incremental 3.81 YPC rate. Excellent production for that level of touches.

This is the source of our disagreement. I don't know any 3.81 YPC is anything but below average production. Why do you believe it to be excellent production?Lastly, even if you disagree with everything I've said, you'll acknolewdge that a higher YPC average is better than a lower one. From your post, it appears as though you value the number of carries for a RB very highly. But there has to be a point when they cross.So, let's get back to the algebra equation: RB A rushes 350 times for 1500 yards. RB B rushes 200 times. How many yards would RB B have to rush for, for you to think that both players provide the exact same amount of value to their teams?

A work horse back, who touches the ball 25 times a game, will get the ball in short yardage, end-of-game and other obvious rushing situations. Times when the defense knows the rush is coming. Its fairly obvious its far more difficult to sustain a high "per carry" average" over many touches as it is to have an inflated average with fewer touches. If you can't see that on your own... well, so be it.Using your logic taken to an extreme their "best back" is the WR who rushes for 11 yards on a reverse, his ONLY carry of the season. So to refute your second point; a higher YPC is not necessarily better than a lower one.I don't simply value "number of carries". It is what those carries imply. First, you have a consistent and durable back who is also highly productive. You also are able to control the clock and subsequently the game. Its also safe to assume with those additional touches comes a proportional increase in TDs.Value? You're advocating a RBBC where I NEED another back to complement RB B. I don't need another guy with RB A.You don't know excellent numbers when you make them up. The 3.8 average is just what RB A does above and beyond B's production. Would anyone consider this career anything but excellent? Rush Yards Avg Career Rush Career Yards Career Avg348 1,962 5.64 348 1,962 5.64313 1,637 5.23 661 3,599 5.44339 1,534 4.53 1000 5,133 5.13372 1,655 4.45 1372 6,788 4.95339 1,354 3.99 1711 8,142 4.76339 1,239 3.65 2050 9,381 4.58

Regarding your point about workhorse backs, here's something I wrote a few months ago. If you don't feel like clicking the link, here's the key part:

You’ll hear this argument a lot: it’s easy to record a high YPC if you don’t have many carries. Maybe they don’t really mean easy, but at least easier. But just because people say it, doesn’t make it true. It’s undoubtedly true that it is easier to get all sorts of extreme YPC numbers with a small number of carries, and that includes really high (and really low) YPC averages. And RBs that are running well usually get more carries going forward than runners that don’t do so well. So what do the numbers say?

Carries 2002 2003 2004 200501-50 3.92 3.75 4.01 3.3451-100 4.34 3.86 4.18 4.15101-150 3.93 4.26 4.11 3.78151-200 3.88 3.97 4.17 3.87201-250 3.94 4.11 4.11 3.97251-300 4.28 4.48 4.19 4.14301+ 4.41 4.43 4.36 4.49Average 4.15 4.18 4.19 4.07

The RBs with the fewest carries also have the lowest yards per carry average. Now be careful. This does not mean that it’s harder for RBs with fewer carries to obtain a high YPC average. It just means that RBs with fewer carries also tend to average fewer yards per carry.

Yes, a "workhorse" RB will get lots of carries at the ends of games, but isn't the theory behind this that the defense should be weak by then? Why do we assume his numbers will go down? Frank Gore averaged 6.0 YPC in the 4th quarter last season. Steven Jackson 5.2. Ahman Green 5.0. I don't think your assumption that it's easy to have a high YPC average over a larger number of touches is all that clear. I think it's easy to have a higher YPC average than your actual ability over a smaller number of touches, but that's fixed in my formula by multiplying by number of carries.Your example of a WR reverse for 11 yards bolsters my point, not refutes it. One carry for 11 yards would give you 7 points of value for the season. (11 YPC - 4 YPC = 7 YPC, multiplied by 1 carry). 300 carries for 4.4 YPC would give you 120 points of value. You can't stop at 11 YPC > 4.4 YPC, but rather at 120 points > 7 points.I consider RB A's career to be excellent, but I also consider RB B's career to be excellent. I'm still waiting to solve the key question here; what is the equivalent number of rushing yards on 200 carries, to 1500 rushing yards on 350 carries? What would make them equal in your mind -- i.e., how many yards does the 200 carry back need to be equal in value to the "workhorse" back?

Not just a matter of D's being tired. Goal line and other short yardage situations dictate that 1 yard is a success and that is how the play is designed. Some backs, as a matter of style, even hold the ball more conservatively, when in clock killing mode. Success is in keeping posession and moving chains. There are times, when a guy busts through the line and the defense is geared to stopping the short yardage play, that a long run is broken. I'm not a proponent of "take away the big play" thinking but it is legitimate that sometimes game situations matter and one long run inflates an average.To anwer your question.. 1,100 yards on 200 carries.

Thanks.My system gives 13 points for a 1 yard TD, so goal line backs certainly aren't harmed by this. Even if they take 3 tries to get in from the 3 yard line, they'd be credited with 5.00 YPC -- I think that's pretty fair.I'm not sure where you're going with the long run theory, because that should help the workhorse backs which you feel are being unfairly penalized.As for the 1100 on 200 carries, that's 5.5 YPC. 1500 yards on 350 carries in 4.3 YPC. Now I'm not saying you're wrong (because I don't know the answer), but that is a bit surprising to me. Where did you get that number from? It seems like finding a collection of runners to rush 150 times for 400 yards is extremely easy, even if you're on the Browns. I'd imagine a team with an 1100/200 carry guy is likely to have a better winning percentage than a team with a 1500/350 guy for that reason.

I know its a significantly higher average. Purely subjective. I favor a guy who can take the ball, week in and week out, and produce against even the better defenses. There have been smallish backs, with break away ability who put up nice per carry averages (Say, a Napoleon Kaufman). They suffer from inconsistency and can be shut down by the better D's. Give me a guy I can build the team around before a guy I have to supplement with a stable of other backs.For the record, here are Napoleon's career numbers: Not bad.. but not franchise either. +--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Rushing | Receiving |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1995 oak | 16 | 108 490 4.5 1 | 9 62 6.9 0 || 1996 oak | 16 | 150 874 5.8 1 | 22 143 6.5 1 || 1997 oak | 16 | 272 1294 4.8 6 | 40 403 10.1 2 || 1998 oak | 13 | 217 921 4.2 2 | 25 191 7.6 0 || 1999 oak | 16 | 138 714 5.2 2 | 18 181 10.1 1 || 2000 oak | 14 | 93 499 5.4 0 | 13 127 9.8 1 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| TOTAL | 91 | 978 4792 4.9 12 | 127 1107 8.7 5 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+Here is the game by game production for his "busiest" season - 1997. Some huge "per carry" games but he could also disappear.+----------+-------------+--------+----+| WK OPP | RSH YD | RECYD | TD |+----------+-------------+--------+----+| 1 ten | 12 32 | 21 | 0 || 2 kan | 22 84 | 34 | 1 || 3 atl | 14 140 | 26 | 2 || 4 nyj | 27 126 | 32 | 0 || 5 stl | 26 162 | -1 | 1 || 6 sdg | 11 13 | 100 | 1 || 8 den | 28 227 | 0 | 1 || 9 sea | 17 112 | 0 | 1 || 10 car | 10 16 | 70 | 1 || 11 nor | 15 14 | 23 | 0 || 12 sdg | 20 109 | 35 | 0 || 13 den | 13 53 | 5 | 0 || 14 mia | 12 69 | 32 | 0 || 15 kan | 8 7 | 0 | 0 || 16 sea | 16 36 | 15 | 0 || 17 jax | 21 94 | 11 | 0 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+| TOTAL | 272 1294 | 403 | 8 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+

Thanks. I see your point. And to the extent that consistency is important, my system will ignore it. I can see how that's a problem, but I'm not sure what the solution is there. (Especially since we're talking about a 272 carry season, which is a pretty significant number. I'm not so sure this is a good example, because Kauffman was a workhorse back that year -- no other Raider had even 20 carries. This might be a NapKauf problem, and not a problem of high YPC guys.)

 

[Sidewinder16]

Now you're not worried about inconsistency or being shut down by better Ds, because these numbers are etched in stone.

Are they etched in stone on a per game basis? Is this a guarantee of 12.5/62.5 or 21.875/93.75 each and every game?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Now you're not worried about inconsistency or being shut down by better Ds, because these numbers are etched in stone.

Are they etched in stone on a per game basis? Is this a guarantee of 12.5/62.5 or 21.875/93.75 each and every game?

You just know their end of year stats. I'd guess they would be distributed in a fairly regular way.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Now you're not worried about inconsistency or being shut down by better Ds, because these numbers are etched in stone.

Are they etched in stone on a per game basis? Is this a guarantee of 12.5/62.5 or 21.875/93.75 each and every game?

You just know their end of year stats. I'd guess they would be distributed in a fairly regular way.

You said this a few posts up:

If it was me, I'd pick the first one. I'd be confident that Maroney getting 1000 yards on 200 carries would put my team in a better chance to win than getting 350 carries for 1500 yards.

Since wins are achieved on a week by week basis, I think I'd want the guy averaging 21-22 carries and 93-94 yards a game. That shows/suggests to me a bigger impact on the flow and control, and therefore the general outcome, of a game. If I saw a 22/94 stat line I'd assume that player is helping to sustain multiple drives, while a 13/63 might only be having a significant impact on the length of 1, maybe 2, drives.Absent a hard definition of a "fairly regular" stat distribution, on a game-by-game and play-by-play basis I think I'd much rather take 4.2 yards guaranteed 22 times to help me win games.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Now you're not worried about inconsistency or being shut down by better Ds, because these numbers are etched in stone.

Are they etched in stone on a per game basis? Is this a guarantee of 12.5/62.5 or 21.875/93.75 each and every game?

You just know their end of year stats. I'd guess they would be distributed in a fairly regular way.

You said this a few posts up:

If it was me, I'd pick the first one. I'd be confident that Maroney getting 1000 yards on 200 carries would put my team in a better chance to win than getting 350 carries for 1500 yards.

Since wins are achieved on a week by week basis, I think I'd want the guy averaging 21-22 carries and 93-94 yards a game. That shows/suggests to me a bigger impact on the flow and control, and therefore the general outcome, of a game. If I saw a 22/94 stat line I'd assume that player is helping to sustain multiple drives, while a 13/63 might only be having a significant impact on the length of 1, maybe 2, drives.Absent a hard definition of a "fairly regular" stat distribution, on a game-by-game and play-by-play basis I think I'd much rather take 4.2 yards guaranteed 22 times to help me win games.

But sticking with this -- when you see that a RB has 13/63 in a game, don't you assume that other RBs on the team can get 9/31? That's not exactly hard, and combined it equals the output of the workhorse back.I look at this the way Bill James looks at plate appearances. The reason walks are so valuable is because they're not an out. Number of outs made by a player is a stat almost no one uses, but it's a critical stat to figuring out how valuable a player is. Everytime you get up and don't make an out, you're helping your teama lot.

Similarly, there are only so many offensive plays in a game, and fewer than average if you're not productive in your early plays. The more plays you get that produce nothing -- which surely the 22/94 guy has more of -- the more you hurt your team.

Just my

 

[PMENFAN]

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).

The converse to that theory is the absolute that if yoru 1 horse gets hurt, you know that you're not going to replace it. I like the RBBC. You're fresher. You wear down the D. Ten years ago, it wasn't as big a deal, but safeties have grown to the size of LB's 20 years ago, and LB"s are the size that Dlinemen used to be, but they've gained speed. That punished the offensive players. I think spreading that beating over more bodies is better on the team over the long haul of the season. Players can take it, but it's a business, and that's your capital investment. Protect it.