Who will have the better season? D Williams or S Jackson (1 Viewer)

[easyee]

Once again, all my numbers were official FBGs scoring + 1 ppr. SJax scored 190.2 points, +40 points for his 40 receptions = 230.2 points, divided by 12 games = 19.18 ppg. DeAngelo = (283.9 + 22)/16 = 19.12. Turner = (276 + 6)/16 = 17.63. Bush = (120.4 + 52)/16 = 17.24. Peterson = (248.2 + 21)/16 = 16.83. Thomas Jones = (241.9 + 36)/16 = 17.39. Steve Slaton = (225.9 + 50)/16 = 17.24. You might notice that every single one of these figures is lower than Jackson's 19.18. Heck, so far, only DeAngelo has managed to even come within a point and a half of SJax's per-game totals.

I did miss Westbrook, though. Westy = (217.8 + 54)/14 = 19.41. Also, I already mentioned Forte- (243.5 + 64)/16 = 19.22, which is more than SJax scored. Again, these are all official FBG scores based on the official FBG scoring rules taken from the official FBGs site and posted on the official FBGs message board (and are therefore probably more relevant than whatever results you had in your MFL league whose scoring system we don't even know).

One final time, here are the PPG totals of all those RBs you listed using the official FBGs point totals, adding one point per reception, and dividing by number of games to get PPG.

Brian Westbrook - 19.41

Matt Forte - 19.22

Steven Jackson - 19.18

DeAngelo Williams - 19.12

Michael Turner - 17.63

Thomas Jones - 17.39

Steve Slaton - 17.24

Reggie Bush - 17.24

Adrian Peterson - 16.83

Edit: Beaten by Lott's Fingertip. Imagine what he could do if he had 9 other fingers!

Those bolded parts right there are the deinition of misleading statistics. If we all played 12 games in our fantasy season, sure SJAX would have been 2nd in average PPG total. However, we all usually play 16-17 weeks in fantasy, and if you change that divisor to 17, SJAX's AVERAGE PPG/17 games would be 13.54. If you don't mind having a back-up RB for 5 weeks, then go for SJAX. Otherwise, take the guy that can stay healthy and put up high PPG.

He is giving you a per game average? Why in the world would he factor in games he missed? He's saying that when on the field his stats show top 5 production, how can that be debated? If you want to debate injuries, that's something entirely different. How can you say that if we played 12 games everyone would have that high average when youd have to take away points? Why in the world would you divide his total number by 16 when he played 12 games? If you divide by 16 you need to have 16 games worth of stats? I really hope you misunderstand him because this is just unfathomable logic.

No, unfathomable logic would be to read the posting and then write what you wrote. The poster is stating that SJAX is a better back due to a higher PPG average. Last I recall, no one wins fantasy leagues based upon an average calculated based upon 3/4 of a total season. Even with his refined stats, which include Kevin Faulk, you are still missing a stud RB for 4 games that could have been played. Stating that SJAX is the second highest PPG back in the league when you are using his amount of games played (12), when comparing him to other backs, you need to have a common denominator to make a TRUE statistical comparison. It would be like some one in baseball playing one game, having one at bat, getting a hit, and then saying he is the best player in the game because he is hitting 1.000. Just makes absolutely no sense when you compare his performance to another guy who goes out there and plays 162 gams a year and hits .340.Point being, there really is no point in saying that an injured back compares to 8 other guys who played 16 games each. Those 8 other guys would most likely help in winning a championship in any given year. A guy that plays 12 games may help you win those 12, but on the 4 that he is absent, even inserting another back, you will most likely lose.

Also, take the top 12 performances from and of the 8 other backs last year, and drop the worst 4, and average those out. If we are comparing backs, let's do apples to apples, please.

So thanks for the "unfathomable logic" tag. Try again.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Here's the thing, fellas... you simply cannot predict injuries, especially at the RB position.

Jackson has pretty much been the starter for 4 seasons. The first season he split with Marshall Faulk, but still got around 20 touches/g.

He missed 1 game, 0 games, and 4 games twice. He didn't tear an ACL, he didn't get 8 concussions, he doesn't have a bulging disk in his back.... he has had a few isolated injuries. Non-recurring, non-degenerative injuries.

But now he is injury-prone. What if his two seasons in which he missed 4 games were 2005-2006, and he missed one game in 2007-2008? Well we wouldn't be having this conversation, he would have been injury prone then, but not any more. You know, like Fred Taylor... or Curtis Martin in college.... or Adrian Peterson in college.... or Clinton Portis when he missed games in 3 out of 4 seasons before playing in the next 32 games.... or Isaac Bruce or Terry Glenn and their yearly hamstring issues.... or Terrell Owens missing games in 5 out of 6 years, then playing in 47 out of the last 48 games.

Is it worthwhile to look back at the top 10 or 20 Rs from last year to determine who will get hurt? It stands to reason that the healthiest RBs will put up the best cumulative stats, so that's not very useful... maybe we should look at who was ranked, by consensus, as the top RBs BEFORE the season started and see what we find.

Of the 2008 preseason consensus top 20 RBs, 7 out of the top 10 and 13 out of the top 20 missed games due to injury.

Think about this.... were these 7 or 13 RBs injury prone? Are they now? Of this year's consensus, how many are going to miss games due to injury? Is this predictable?

What are the odds that any particular RB will miss games due to injury? Well, they seem pretty high.

Heck, Deangelo missed 3 games in his rookie year due to an ankle injury... was he injury prone then?

The consensus top 12 RBs right now are

Peterson - injury history

MJD - never has carried the load

Turner - some injury history, doesn't get receiving stats

LT - old, some recent injury concerns

Jackson - everything everybody has said in this thread

Forte - probably the least talented and least explosive of this bunch; also tore his MCL and PCL in college

D.Williams - possible timeshare, possible regression to the mean

Gore - injuries throughout career

C.Johnson - no goal line carries

Portis - wear and tear, always nagging injuries, Betts might be full time 3rd down back

Slaton - no goal line carries

Jacobs - not much receiving, injury issues

The simple fact is that all of these RBs have warts.

I can be convinced that Peterson, MJD, and Turner should be ahead of Jackson. I understand the argument that Williams and Forte could be ranked ahead of Jackson. I can see the shiny-new-plaything effect for Chris Johnson and Steve Slaton (though I cannot see ranking them above Jackson).

To each his own, of course.

~~~

To sum up, the only argument against Jackson is that he has missed games in two straight years.

Bad team? Just like last year.

Bad O-line? Just like last year (minus an old Pace, plus a top rookie AND the top free agent Olineman from a top rushing offense - Jason Brown)

Bad results? well, it hasn't happened so far....

Every RB carries a significant injury risk, thus the yearly turnover in the rankings. Jackson is 100% healthy right now.

It is simply foolish to think you can predict RB injuries. It is equally foolish to dismiss Jackson.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

No, unfathomable logic would be to read the posting and then write what you wrote. The poster is stating that SJAX is a better back due to a higher PPG average. Last I recall, no one wins fantasy leagues based upon an average calculated based upon 3/4 of a total season. Even with his refined stats, which include Kevin Faulk, you are still missing a stud RB for 4 games that could have been played. Stating that SJAX is the second highest PPG back in the league when you are using his amount of games played (12), when comparing him to other backs, you need to have a common denominator to make a TRUE statistical comparison. It would be like some one in baseball playing one game, having one at bat, getting a hit, and then saying he is the best player in the game because he is hitting 1.000. Just makes absolutely no sense when you compare his performance to another guy who goes out there and plays 162 gams a year and hits .340. Point being, there really is no point in saying that an injured back compares to 8 other guys who played 16 games each. Those 8 other guys would most likely help in winning a championship in any given year. A guy that plays 12 games may help you win those 12, but on the 4 that he is absent, even inserting another back, you will most likely lose. Also, take the top 12 performances from and of the 8 other backs last year, and drop the worst 4, and average those out. If we are comparing backs, let's do apples to apples, please. So thanks for the "unfathomable logic" tag. Try again.

Please explain how you determine which RBs will get injured. Thanks in advance.

 

[easyee]

Here's the thing, fellas... you simply cannot predict injuries, especially at the RB position.

Jackson has pretty much been the starter for 4 seasons. The first season he split with Marshall Faulk, but still got around 20 touches/g.

He missed 1 game, 0 games, and 4 games twice. He didn't tear an ACL, he didn't get 8 concussions, he doesn't have a bulging disk in his back.... he has had a few isolated injuries. Non-recurring, non-degenerative injuries.

But now he is injury-prone. What if his two seasons in which he missed 4 games were 2005-2006, and he missed one game in 2007-2008? Well we wouldn't be having this conversation, he would have been injury prone then, but not any more. You know, like Fred Taylor... or Curtis Martin in college.... or Adrian Peterson in college.... or Clinton Portis when he missed games in 3 out of 4 seasons before playing in the next 32 games.... or Isaac Bruce or Terry Glenn and their yearly hamstring issues.... or Terrell Owens missing games in 5 out of 6 years, then playing in 47 out of the last 48 games.

Is it worthwhile to look back at the top 10 or 20 Rs from last year to determine who will get hurt? It stands to reason that the healthiest RBs will put up the best cumulative stats, so that's not very useful... maybe we should look at who was ranked, by consensus, as the top RBs BEFORE the season started and see what we find.

Of the 2008 preseason consensus top 20 RBs, 7 out of the top 10 and 13 out of the top 20 missed games due to injury.

Think about this.... were these 7 or 13 RBs injury prone? Are they now? Of this year's consensus, how many are going to miss games due to injury? Is this predictable?

What are the odds that any particular RB will miss games due to injury? Well, they seem pretty high.

Heck, Deangelo missed 3 games in his rookie year due to an ankle injury... was he injury prone then?

The consensus top 12 RBs right now are

Peterson - injury history

MJD - never has carried the load

Turner - some injury history, doesn't get receiving stats

LT - old, some recent injury concerns

Jackson - everything everybody has said in this thread

Forte - probably the least talented and least explosive of this bunch; also tore his MCL and PCL in college

D.Williams - possible timeshare, possible regression to the mean

Gore - injuries throughout career

C.Johnson - no goal line carries

Portis - wear and tear, always nagging injuries, Betts might be full time 3rd down back

Slaton - no goal line carries

Jacobs - not much receiving, injury issues

The simple fact is that all of these RBs have warts.

I can be convinced that Peterson, MJD, and Turner should be ahead of Jackson. I understand the argument that Williams and Forte could be ranked ahead of Jackson. I can see the shiny-new-plaything effect for Chris Johnson and Steve Slaton (though I cannot see ranking them above Jackson).

To each his own, of course.

~~~

To sum up, the only argument against Jackson is that he has missed games in two straight years.

Bad team? Just like last year.

Bad O-line? Just like last year (minus an old Pace, plus a top rookie AND the top free agent Olineman from a top rushing offense - Jason Brown)

Bad results? well, it hasn't happened so far....

Every RB carries a significant injury risk, thus the yearly turnover in the rankings. Jackson is 100% healthy right now.

It is simply foolish to think you can predict RB injuries. It is equally foolish to dismiss Jackson.

I agree completely. I don't think you can predict injuries. However, this particular set of postings heavily relies on statistical information to enforce an opinion. If we're using stats alone, especially when just using 1 year as a sample size, the argument tends to become washed out and unprovable, to a large degree.When using subjectivity, which is all that we can really do when predicting future performance based upon past stats, then sure, SJAX is a great back. He might be top 5. He might miss all 16 games. Who knows? Same with the rest of the top 10. It's all specultive, at this point. I just think it is foolish to use misleading statistics to prove/disprove a subjective argument.

 

[abe froman]

This whole thread went to he[[.. believe that this will be revisted come week 16-17!

 

[SSOG]

Those bolded parts right there are the deinition of misleading statistics. If we all played 12 games in our fantasy season, sure SJAX would have been 2nd in average PPG total. However, we all usually play 16-17 weeks in fantasy, and if you change that divisor to 16, SJAX's AVERAGE PPG/1 games would be about 14. If you don't mind having a back-up RB for 5 weeks, then go for SJAX. Otherwise, take the guy that can stay healthy and put up high PPG.

It's not a misleading statistic. I've been saying that when SJax is on the field, he's a stud... so I illustrate it with a statistic that shows what he does when he's on the field. If anything, a misleading statistic in this case would be one that penalized him for the times he's not on the field. If you want to downgrade him because you think he's an injury risk, that's one thing... but when SJax is on the field, he's a stud. Personally, I'm not comfortable predicting injuries, so I'm far more concerned with a back's PPG numbers than his total numbers.Besides, as I said, if you had Kevin Faulk (33rd best RB in PPG) backing up Steven Jackson, then the combo would still rank 6th in the NFL in points per game.

No, unfathomable logic would be to read the posting and then write what you wrote. The poster is stating that SJAX is a better back due to a higher PPG average. Last I recall, no one wins fantasy leagues based upon an average calculated based upon 3/4 of a total season. Even with his refined stats, which include Kevin Faulk, you are still missing a stud RB for 4 games that could have been played. Stating that SJAX is the second highest PPG back in the league when you are using his amount of games played (12), when comparing him to other backs, you need to have a common denominator to make a TRUE statistical comparison. It would be like some one in baseball playing one game, having one at bat, getting a hit, and then saying he is the best player in the game because he is hitting 1.000. Just makes absolutely no sense when you compare his performance to another guy who goes out there and plays 162 gams a year and hits .340. Point being, there really is no point in saying that an injured back compares to 8 other guys who played 16 games each. Those 8 other guys would most likely help in winning a championship in any given year. A guy that plays 12 games may help you win those 12, but on the 4 that he is absent, even inserting another back, you will most likely lose. Also, take the top 12 performances from and of the 8 other backs last year, and drop the worst 4, and average those out. If we are comparing backs, let's do apples to apples, please. So thanks for the "unfathomable logic" tag. Try again.

The baseball comparison is ludicrous. A sample size of 1 game is RADICALLY different than a sample size of 162 games. A sample size of 12 games is essentially the same as a sample size of 16 games. If you want to use a baseball analogy, it'd be like if one hitter played 120 games and hit .400, and another played 160 games and hit .350, and you said that the first guy was a better hitter. You'd be right.Also, you can't take away another RB's worst games and then compare, because there's a fundamental difference between a game missed to injury and a game where the RB just plain sucks. I know before the fact if my RB is missing the game due to injury. I don't know for a fact if he's just going to suck. If Steven Jackson misses four games, then you can bet your butt that I'm going to be starting by RB3 for those four games. Meanwhile, if DeAngelo has four bad games, then you can bet your butt that he was in your starting lineup for all four of them and you ate the bad score.

I agree completely. I don't think you can predict injuries. However, this particular set of postings heavily relies on statistical information to enforce an opinion. If we're using stats alone, especially when just using 1 year as a sample size, the argument tends to become washed out and unprovable, to a large degree.When using subjectivity, which is all that we can really do when predicting future performance based upon past stats, then sure, SJAX is a great back. He might be top 5. He might miss all 16 games. Who knows? Same with the rest of the top 10. It's all specultive, at this point. I just think it is foolish to use misleading statistics to prove/disprove a subjective argument.

If you can't predict injuries, then what's your problem with using PPG analysis? I say that Steven Jackson is a top 3 RB when he's on the field. The PPG numbers back me up. I say that you can't predict injuries, so SJax is as likely to play 16 games as DeAngelo. You apparently agree with me. Where are the misleading statistics coming in?If your problem is that I'm using a 1-year sample size, then I've already addressed that. Let's use a 3-year sample size. SJax has ranked 3rd, 7th, and 3rd in PPG over the past three years. He's also ranked 3rd among RBs in total points over that span (not in total points per game, in total points PERIOD, which punishes him for his missed time). SJax has a 3-year track record. Heck, he actually has a four year track record- four years ago he managed to finish 11th despite splitting time with Marshall Faulk and only playing 15 games. If you want to talk about a short track record, we should be talking about DeAngelo Williams, who essentially has a 12-game track record of success compared to Jackson's 55-game track record of success.

 

[easyee]

Those bolded parts right there are the deinition of misleading statistics. If we all played 12 games in our fantasy season, sure SJAX would have been 2nd in average PPG total. However, we all usually play 16-17 weeks in fantasy, and if you change that divisor to 16, SJAX's AVERAGE PPG/1 games would be about 14. If you don't mind having a back-up RB for 5 weeks, then go for SJAX. Otherwise, take the guy that can stay healthy and put up high PPG.

It's not a misleading statistic. I've been saying that when SJax is on the field, he's a stud... so I illustrate it with a statistic that shows what he does when he's on the field. If anything, a misleading statistic in this case would be one that penalized him for the times he's not on the field. If you want to downgrade him because you think he's an injury risk, that's one thing... but when SJax is on the field, he's a stud. Personally, I'm not comfortable predicting injuries, so I'm far more concerned with a back's PPG numbers than his total numbers.Besides, as I said, if you had Kevin Faulk (33rd best RB in PPG) backing up Steven Jackson, then the combo would still rank 6th in the NFL in points per game.

No, unfathomable logic would be to read the posting and then write what you wrote. The poster is stating that SJAX is a better back due to a higher PPG average. Last I recall, no one wins fantasy leagues based upon an average calculated based upon 3/4 of a total season. Even with his refined stats, which include Kevin Faulk, you are still missing a stud RB for 4 games that could have been played. Stating that SJAX is the second highest PPG back in the league when you are using his amount of games played (12), when comparing him to other backs, you need to have a common denominator to make a TRUE statistical comparison. It would be like some one in baseball playing one game, having one at bat, getting a hit, and then saying he is the best player in the game because he is hitting 1.000. Just makes absolutely no sense when you compare his performance to another guy who goes out there and plays 162 gams a year and hits .340. Point being, there really is no point in saying that an injured back compares to 8 other guys who played 16 games each. Those 8 other guys would most likely help in winning a championship in any given year. A guy that plays 12 games may help you win those 12, but on the 4 that he is absent, even inserting another back, you will most likely lose. Also, take the top 12 performances from and of the 8 other backs last year, and drop the worst 4, and average those out. If we are comparing backs, let's do apples to apples, please. So thanks for the "unfathomable logic" tag. Try again.

The baseball comparison is ludicrous. A sample size of 1 game is RADICALLY different than a sample size of 162 games. A sample size of 12 games is essentially the same as a sample size of 16 games. If you want to use a baseball analogy, it'd be like if one hitter played 120 games and hit .400, and another played 160 games and hit .350, and you said that the first guy was a better hitter. You'd be right.Also, you can't take away another RB's worst games and then compare, because there's a fundamental difference between a game missed to injury and a game where the RB just plain sucks. I know before the fact if my RB is missing the game due to injury. I don't know for a fact if he's just going to suck. If Steven Jackson misses four games, then you can bet your butt that I'm going to be starting by RB3 for those four games. Meanwhile, if DeAngelo has four bad games, then you can bet your butt that he was in your starting lineup for all four of them and you ate the bad score.

I agree completely. I don't think you can predict injuries. However, this particular set of postings heavily relies on statistical information to enforce an opinion. If we're using stats alone, especially when just using 1 year as a sample size, the argument tends to become washed out and unprovable, to a large degree.When using subjectivity, which is all that we can really do when predicting future performance based upon past stats, then sure, SJAX is a great back. He might be top 5. He might miss all 16 games. Who knows? Same with the rest of the top 10. It's all specultive, at this point. I just think it is foolish to use misleading statistics to prove/disprove a subjective argument.

If you can't predict injuries, then what's your problem with using PPG analysis? I say that Steven Jackson is a top 3 RB when he's on the field. The PPG numbers back me up. I say that you can't predict injuries, so SJax is as likely to play 16 games as DeAngelo. You apparently agree with me. Where are the misleading statistics coming in?If your problem is that I'm using a 1-year sample size, then I've already addressed that. Let's use a 3-year sample size. SJax has ranked 3rd, 7th, and 3rd in PPG over the past three years. He's also ranked 3rd among RBs in total points over that span (not in total points per game, in total points PERIOD, which punishes him for his missed time). SJax has a 3-year track record. Heck, he actually has a four year track record- four years ago he managed to finish 11th despite splitting time with Marshall Faulk and only playing 15 games. If you want to talk about a short track record, we should be talking about DeAngelo Williams, who essentially has a 12-game track record of success compared to Jackson's 55-game track record of success.

The three year sample size is exactly what I was looking for. I'm not saying, by any mean, that SJAX wasn't good while on the field. I said that using that math that you used to prove that logic was faulty, at best. A 3 year track record is awesome, and is what should have been presented in the first place, not saying that WHEN player A played in a game last year, he was this good. There is really no way to compare any one else's full season to his partial season without running into bad stats. Use 12 games or 16 games, not 12 for one and 16 for another. Hell, for all we know SJAX could have put up 4 lame ducks in those games. We simply don't know.My overall point is that Fantasy Football is much like predicting a horse race: it's a lot of luck. There is no doubt SJAX is talented, I just thought the use of your statistics was bad. No harm done, just a valid point about using averages and different denominators.By the way, I would much rather have a player on my team that hit .350 over 162 games than one that hits .400 for 120. The .350 guy is helping my team win every day for the whole season, the .400 guy is possibly costing me a shot at a playoff berth. Maybe using a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter is a better example?

 

[cvnpoka]

Once again, all my numbers were official FBGs scoring + 1 ppr. SJax scored 190.2 points, +40 points for his 40 receptions = 230.2 points, divided by 12 games = 19.18 ppg. DeAngelo = (283.9 + 22)/16 = 19.12. Turner = (276 + 6)/16 = 17.63. Bush = (120.4 + 52)/16 = 17.24. Peterson = (248.2 + 21)/16 = 16.83. Thomas Jones = (241.9 + 36)/16 = 17.39. Steve Slaton = (225.9 + 50)/16 = 17.24. You might notice that every single one of these figures is lower than Jackson's 19.18. Heck, so far, only DeAngelo has managed to even come within a point and a half of SJax's per-game totals.

I did miss Westbrook, though. Westy = (217.8 + 54)/14 = 19.41. Also, I already mentioned Forte- (243.5 + 64)/16 = 19.22, which is more than SJax scored. Again, these are all official FBG scores based on the official FBG scoring rules taken from the official FBGs site and posted on the official FBGs message board (and are therefore probably more relevant than whatever results you had in your MFL league whose scoring system we don't even know).

One final time, here are the PPG totals of all those RBs you listed using the official FBGs point totals, adding one point per reception, and dividing by number of games to get PPG.

Brian Westbrook - 19.41

Matt Forte - 19.22

Steven Jackson - 19.18

DeAngelo Williams - 19.12

Michael Turner - 17.63

Thomas Jones - 17.39

Steve Slaton - 17.24

Reggie Bush - 17.24

Adrian Peterson - 16.83

Edit: Beaten by Lott's Fingertip. Imagine what he could do if he had 9 other fingers!

Those bolded parts right there are the deinition of misleading statistics. If we all played 12 games in our fantasy season, sure SJAX would have been 2nd in average PPG total. However, we all usually play 16-17 weeks in fantasy, and if you change that divisor to 17, SJAX's AVERAGE PPG/17 games would be 13.54. If you don't mind having a back-up RB for 5 weeks, then go for SJAX. Otherwise, take the guy that can stay healthy and put up high PPG.

He is giving you a per game average? Why in the world would he factor in games he missed? He's saying that when on the field his stats show top 5 production, how can that be debated? If you want to debate injuries, that's something entirely different. How can you say that if we played 12 games everyone would have that high average when youd have to take away points? Why in the world would you divide his total number by 16 when he played 12 games? If you divide by 16 you need to have 16 games worth of stats? I really hope you misunderstand him because this is just unfathomable logic.

No, unfathomable logic would be to read the posting and then write what you wrote. The poster is stating that SJAX is a better back due to a higher PPG average. Last I recall, no one wins fantasy leagues based upon an average calculated based upon 3/4 of a total season. Even with his refined stats, which include Kevin Faulk, you are still missing a stud RB for 4 games that could have been played. Stating that SJAX is the second highest PPG back in the league when you are using his amount of games played (12), when comparing him to other backs, you need to have a common denominator to make a TRUE statistical comparison. It would be like some one in baseball playing one game, having one at bat, getting a hit, and then saying he is the best player in the game because he is hitting 1.000. Just makes absolutely no sense when you compare his performance to another guy who goes out there and plays 162 gams a year and hits .340.Point being, there really is no point in saying that an injured back compares to 8 other guys who played 16 games each. Those 8 other guys would most likely help in winning a championship in any given year. A guy that plays 12 games may help you win those 12, but on the 4 that he is absent, even inserting another back, you will most likely lose.

Also, take the top 12 performances from and of the 8 other backs last year, and drop the worst 4, and average those out. If we are comparing backs, let's do apples to apples, please.

So thanks for the "unfathomable logic" tag. Try again.

facepalm.jpg

 

[SSOG]

The three year sample size is exactly what I was looking for. I'm not saying, by any mean, that SJAX wasn't good while on the field. I said that using that math that you used to prove that logic was faulty, at best. A 3 year track record is awesome, and is what should have been presented in the first place, not saying that WHEN player A played in a game last year, he was this good. There is really no way to compare any one else's full season to his partial season without running into bad stats. Use 12 games or 16 games, not 12 for one and 16 for another. Hell, for all we know SJAX could have put up 4 lame ducks in those games. We simply don't know.My overall point is that Fantasy Football is much like predicting a horse race: it's a lot of luck. There is no doubt SJAX is talented, I just thought the use of your statistics was bad. No harm done, just a valid point about using averages and different denominators.By the way, I would much rather have a player on my team that hit .350 over 162 games than one that hits .400 for 120. The .350 guy is helping my team win every day for the whole season, the .400 guy is possibly costing me a shot at a playoff berth. Maybe using a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter is a better example?

The goal is to predict performance going forward. LAST YEAR you might have preferred the .350 guy, but when you're looking at this year, would you rather have a guy who hit .400 in 120 games last year, or a guy who hit .350 in 160 games? I'd take the .400 hitter, since he's a better hitter and there's no reason to believe he's going to miss all that time again this year (unless, of course, there *IS* reason to believe he'll miss time, such as if he's recovering from major surgery or he has a chronic or degenerative condition).We don't know what SJax would have done in the 4 games he missed, but it doesn't matter. He could have put up 4 stinkers, sure. He also could have put up 4 30+ point games. Based on his historical averages, he likely would have put up 3 average games and a great game. We don't know. The thing is, though... we don't *NEED* to know.Imagine you're flipping a Quarter and a Penny. You flip the quarter 20 times and get 10 heads and 10 tails. You flip the Penny 16 times and get 8 heads and 8 tails. Now, you could say "this penny might be weighted because the next four flips could have all come up heads!", or you could say "here's how the penny historically performed, and odds are it would have continued to perform like that had we continued to flip it". That's what I illustrated with SJax's PPG numbers and his inter-quartile performance numbers. Historically, SJax performs both at a high level and at a consistent level. He missed 4 games, but odds are that during those 4 games he would have performed at a high level and a consistent level... because that's how SJax has historically performed. You can't say "but he might have bucked historical trends and had his 4 worst games of the season, so let's toss out the four worst games of another RB and then compare!". I could just as easily say "he might have had his 4 BEST games of the season, so let's toss out the four BEST games of another RB and compare!". Both would be equally valid (or, rather, both would be equally INVALID).I don't know where this hangup came from that you must have a common denominator in order to compare two figures, but it's simply not true. More games are always better in order to provide a more statistically valid sample size, but when you get down to it, there's very little statistical difference between a sample size of 12 and a sample size of 16. Both are really small, but conclusions drawn from one are essentially just as valid as conclusions drawn from the other.

 

[easyee]

The three year sample size is exactly what I was looking for. I'm not saying, by any mean, that SJAX wasn't good while on the field. I said that using that math that you used to prove that logic was faulty, at best. A 3 year track record is awesome, and is what should have been presented in the first place, not saying that WHEN player A played in a game last year, he was this good. There is really no way to compare any one else's full season to his partial season without running into bad stats. Use 12 games or 16 games, not 12 for one and 16 for another. Hell, for all we know SJAX could have put up 4 lame ducks in those games. We simply don't know.My overall point is that Fantasy Football is much like predicting a horse race: it's a lot of luck. There is no doubt SJAX is talented, I just thought the use of your statistics was bad. No harm done, just a valid point about using averages and different denominators.By the way, I would much rather have a player on my team that hit .350 over 162 games than one that hits .400 for 120. The .350 guy is helping my team win every day for the whole season, the .400 guy is possibly costing me a shot at a playoff berth. Maybe using a .300 hitter and a .250 hitter is a better example?

The goal is to predict performance going forward. LAST YEAR you might have preferred the .350 guy, but when you're looking at this year, would you rather have a guy who hit .400 in 120 games last year, or a guy who hit .350 in 160 games? I'd take the .400 hitter, since he's a better hitter and there's no reason to believe he's going to miss all that time again this year (unless, of course, there *IS* reason to believe he'll miss time, such as if he's recovering from major surgery or he has a chronic or degenerative condition).We don't know what SJax would have done in the 4 games he missed, but it doesn't matter. He could have put up 4 stinkers, sure. He also could have put up 4 30+ point games. Based on his historical averages, he likely would have put up 3 average games and a great game. We don't know. The thing is, though... we don't *NEED* to know.Imagine you're flipping a Quarter and a Penny. You flip the quarter 20 times and get 10 heads and 10 tails. You flip the Penny 16 times and get 8 heads and 8 tails. Now, you could say "this penny might be weighted because the next four flips could have all come up heads!", or you could say "here's how the penny historically performed, and odds are it would have continued to perform like that had we continued to flip it". That's what I illustrated with SJax's PPG numbers and his inter-quartile performance numbers. Historically, SJax performs both at a high level and at a consistent level. He missed 4 games, but odds are that during those 4 games he would have performed at a high level and a consistent level... because that's how SJax has historically performed. You can't say "but he might have bucked historical trends and had his 4 worst games of the season, so let's toss out the four worst games of another RB and then compare!". I could just as easily say "he might have had his 4 BEST games of the season, so let's toss out the four BEST games of another RB and compare!". Both would be equally valid (or, rather, both would be equally INVALID).I don't know where this hangup came from that you must have a common denominator in order to compare two figures, but it's simply not true. More games are always better in order to provide a more statistically valid sample size, but when you get down to it, there's very little statistical difference between a sample size of 12 and a sample size of 16. Both are really small, but conclusions drawn from one are essentially just as valid as conclusions drawn from the other.

No hangup-just a request that, when comparing 2 players when trying to recommend them to someone making a draft choice, we don't just insert 12 as a denominator for one, and 16 for another, and then say "Look, in PPG, this player was THIS good." Also, I have no idea where the notion of 12 games being statistically equal to 16 for a sample size comes in, but it's not. It's like saying "Well, Team X was playing at such a level for 3 quarters and is leading Team Y, so we should just not bother playing the 4th and give Team X the win!!!". Four quarters are played in football for a reason, as are 16 games used when comparing players, there's just no way around it.For the sake of this thread, I just say we end this argument. It's really not helping anyone anymore, and I'll just agree to disagree with you. Is that cool with you?

 

[SSOG]

No hangup-just a request that, when comparing 2 players when trying to recommend them to someone making a draft choice, we don't just insert 12 as a denominator for one, and 16 for another, and then say "Look, in PPG, this player was THIS good." Also, I have no idea where the notion of 12 games being statistically equal to 16 for a sample size comes in, but it's not. It's like saying "Well, Team X was playing at such a level for 3 quarters and is leading Team Y, so we should just not bother playing the 4th and give Team X the win!!!". Four quarters are played in football for a reason, as are 16 games used when comparing players, there's just no way around it.For the sake of this thread, I just say we end this argument. It's really not helping anyone anymore, and I'll just agree to disagree with you. Is that cool with you?

Why shouldn't we use 12 as the denominator for one and 16 for the other? If a baseball player plays 160 games and another plays 159 games, can we not compare their batting averages because there's a different denominator? What about 160 vs. 158? What about 160 vs. 157? What if both play 160 games, but one bats leadoff and registers 18 more at-bats in that span, are we not allowed to compare their batting averages? If we're talking about two different RBs, can we not compare their YPA totals unless they both had the exact same number of carries? When we're talking about QBs, can we not compare their TD% unless they had the exact same number of attempts? Can we not compare O.J. Simpson's dominance to LaDanian Tomlinson's dominance because Simpson played a 14-game season and Tomlinson played a 16-game season? Sure, Simpson ran for 140 yards per game in 1973... but if he'd had to play two more games, he might have only run for 10 total yards in them! People compare rate stats between two subjects with radically different denominators a hundred times every day on FBGs, but it's only a problem when we're comparing PPG numbers from Jackson and Williams?Also, your 3-quarters example is once again a terrible example. We're using previous data in order to predict future results. It's not like declaring a winner after 3 quarters, it's like watching 3 quarters of a game and saying "This team has scored more points, so it's probably a better team". It's like saying "this team has outscored the other team for 3 straight quarters, so I'd imagine they're more likely than not to outscore the other team in the 4th quarter, as well". Steven Jackson has been a stud every time he's been on the field for three straight seasons, so he's more than likely to be a stud when he's on the field this season, as well.It's absolutely cool with me if you want to disagree with me on the prospects of Jackson or Williams. We're talking about opinions and projections and predictions, none of which are an exact science, and all of which are subject to millions of different variables and open to all kinds of interpretation. If you want to disagree with me on whether "points per game" is a legitimate statistic, on the other hand... well, that's just silly. Suddenly we're not talking about opinions or projections, we're talking about whether perfectly sound statistical method has any merit to it whatsoever. There's an entire branch of mathematics that says we can compare a 12-game sample to a 16-game sample when predicting future results. Sure, that branch of mathematics says we're very slightly more confident in whatever conclusions we draw from the 16 game sample than we are in the ones we draw from the 12 game sample, but, to be perfectly honest, we really aren't very confident in either set of data- both samples are far smaller than we would like. I suppose it's fine with me if you want to disagree with an entire branch of mathematics... that's your prerogative.

 

[easyee]

No hangup-just a request that, when comparing 2 players when trying to recommend them to someone making a draft choice, we don't just insert 12 as a denominator for one, and 16 for another, and then say "Look, in PPG, this player was THIS good." Also, I have no idea where the notion of 12 games being statistically equal to 16 for a sample size comes in, but it's not. It's like saying "Well, Team X was playing at such a level for 3 quarters and is leading Team Y, so we should just not bother playing the 4th and give Team X the win!!!". Four quarters are played in football for a reason, as are 16 games used when comparing players, there's just no way around it.For the sake of this thread, I just say we end this argument. It's really not helping anyone anymore, and I'll just agree to disagree with you. Is that cool with you?

Why shouldn't we use 12 as the denominator for one and 16 for the other? If a baseball player plays 160 games and another plays 159 games, can we not compare their batting averages because there's a different denominator? What about 160 vs. 158? What about 160 vs. 157? What if both play 160 games, but one bats leadoff and registers 18 more at-bats in that span, are we not allowed to compare their batting averages? If we're talking about two different RBs, can we not compare their YPA totals unless they both had the exact same number of carries? When we're talking about QBs, can we not compare their TD% unless they had the exact same number of attempts? Can we not compare O.J. Simpson's dominance to LaDanian Tomlinson's dominance because Simpson played a 14-game season and Tomlinson played a 16-game season? Sure, Simpson ran for 140 yards per game in 1973... but if he'd had to play two more games, he might have only run for 10 total yards in them! People compare rate stats between two subjects with radically different denominators a hundred times every day on FBGs, but it's only a problem when we're comparing PPG numbers from Jackson and Williams?Also, your 3-quarters example is once again a terrible example. We're using previous data in order to predict future results. It's not like declaring a winner after 3 quarters, it's like watching 3 quarters of a game and saying "This team has scored more points, so it's probably a better team". It's like saying "this team has outscored the other team for 3 straight quarters, so I'd imagine they're more likely than not to outscore the other team in the 4th quarter, as well". Steven Jackson has been a stud every time he's been on the field for three straight seasons, so he's more than likely to be a stud when he's on the field this season, as well.It's absolutely cool with me if you want to disagree with me on the prospects of Jackson or Williams. We're talking about opinions and projections and predictions, none of which are an exact science, and all of which are subject to millions of different variables and open to all kinds of interpretation. If you want to disagree with me on whether "points per game" is a legitimate statistic, on the other hand... well, that's just silly. Suddenly we're not talking about opinions or projections, we're talking about whether perfectly sound statistical method has any merit to it whatsoever. There's an entire branch of mathematics that says we can compare a 12-game sample to a 16-game sample when predicting future results. Sure, that branch of mathematics says we're very slightly more confident in whatever conclusions we draw from the 16 game sample than we are in the ones we draw from the 12 game sample, but, to be perfectly honest, we really aren't very confident in either set of data- both samples are far smaller than we would like. I suppose it's fine with me if you want to disagree with an entire branch of mathematics... that's your prerogative.

Do you read before posting, or do you just use the force to respond? Seriously, quote me when I ever said I disagree with using PPG to compare players that played an equal amount of time in one given season (which was the very sound example that you posted). Go on, I'll be waiting. Still trying to find that post? Awesome, keep going...Also, by your own postings, you said that by getting Kevin Faulk and inserting him when SJAX was injured would make your combo the 6th best in the league last year. Wait, wouldn't DWill be ahead in the race, then? I think you just proved what I was saying. Thank you.

 

[MCguidance]

Once again, all my numbers were official FBGs scoring + 1 ppr. SJax scored 190.2 points, +40 points for his 40 receptions = 230.2 points, divided by 12 games = 19.18 ppg. DeAngelo = (283.9 + 22)/16 = 19.12. Turner = (276 + 6)/16 = 17.63. Bush = (120.4 + 52)/16 = 17.24. Peterson = (248.2 + 21)/16 = 16.83. Thomas Jones = (241.9 + 36)/16 = 17.39. Steve Slaton = (225.9 + 50)/16 = 17.24. You might notice that every single one of these figures is lower than Jackson's 19.18. Heck, so far, only DeAngelo has managed to even come within a point and a half of SJax's per-game totals.

I did miss Westbrook, though. Westy = (217.8 + 54)/14 = 19.41. Also, I already mentioned Forte- (243.5 + 64)/16 = 19.22, which is more than SJax scored. Again, these are all official FBG scores based on the official FBG scoring rules taken from the official FBGs site and posted on the official FBGs message board (and are therefore probably more relevant than whatever results you had in your MFL league whose scoring system we don't even know).

One final time, here are the PPG totals of all those RBs you listed using the official FBGs point totals, adding one point per reception, and dividing by number of games to get PPG.

Brian Westbrook - 19.41

Matt Forte - 19.22

Steven Jackson - 19.18

DeAngelo Williams - 19.12

Michael Turner - 17.63

Thomas Jones - 17.39

Steve Slaton - 17.24

Reggie Bush - 17.24

Adrian Peterson - 16.83

Edit: Beaten by Lott's Fingertip. Imagine what he could do if he had 9 other fingers!

Those bolded parts right there are the deinition of misleading statistics. If we all played 12 games in our fantasy season, sure SJAX would have been 2nd in average PPG total. However, we all usually play 16-17 weeks in fantasy, and if you change that divisor to 17, SJAX's AVERAGE PPG/17 games would be 13.54. If you don't mind having a back-up RB for 5 weeks, then go for SJAX. Otherwise, take the guy that can stay healthy and put up high PPG.

He is giving you a per game average? Why in the world would he factor in games he missed? He's saying that when on the field his stats show top 5 production, how can that be debated? If you want to debate injuries, that's something entirely different. How can you say that if we played 12 games everyone would have that high average when youd have to take away points? Why in the world would you divide his total number by 16 when he played 12 games? If you divide by 16 you need to have 16 games worth of stats? I really hope you misunderstand him because this is just unfathomable logic.

No, unfathomable logic would be to read the posting and then write what you wrote. The poster is stating that SJAX is a better back due to a higher PPG average. Last I recall, no one wins fantasy leagues based upon an average calculated based upon 3/4 of a total season. Even with his refined stats, which include Kevin Faulk, you are still missing a stud RB for 4 games that could have been played. Stating that SJAX is the second highest PPG back in the league when you are using his amount of games played (12), when comparing him to other backs, you need to have a common denominator to make a TRUE statistical comparison. It would be like some one in baseball playing one game, having one at bat, getting a hit, and then saying he is the best player in the game because he is hitting 1.000. Just makes absolutely no sense when you compare his performance to another guy who goes out there and plays 162 gams a year and hits .340.Point being, there really is no point in saying that an injured back compares to 8 other guys who played 16 games each. Those 8 other guys would most likely help in winning a championship in any given year. A guy that plays 12 games may help you win those 12, but on the 4 that he is absent, even inserting another back, you will most likely lose.

Also, take the top 12 performances from and of the 8 other backs last year, and drop the worst 4, and average those out. If we are comparing backs, let's do apples to apples, please.

So thanks for the "unfathomable logic" tag. Try again.

Tough to argue with that right there For a PPG analysis, you have an AVERAGE. You do not need all the games. Also, why would he drop the four worst games from other backs when he used all the games from Steven Jackson's year? The more I think about it the more I realize there really is no point arguing this, we are arguing two different things here.By the way, you realize that every baseball player does not have the same amount of at bats right (i.e to determine a batting title champion)? They do have a cutoff of 502 at bats to qualify. Do you suggest that in football they have an amount of games cutoff for stats to become relevant? If so, what do you suggest that number be so we can have true analysis? Because if we don't average the games, I am wondering what you think we should use to compare?

 

[Lash]

I voted SJax because he's the one that's proven that his stud-hood is independent of his offense. DeAngelo is far more likely to regress based on a regression in the offense around him, or a weakening of the offensive line, or he might simply have been playing over his head last year. SJax won't regress because things can't possibly get worse than they've been for the past two years.

over his head?for 16 games?maybe one or two weeks but 16 games?SJax won't regress? well that's good because if he DOUBLES his usual output it won't equal DeWill's seasonjust watch tape guys, DeWill is the best RB in football not named Peterson and even ADP can't do some of the things DeWill doesOnly back in history to go 5.5ypc with 18 TDs in a 16 game scheduleso i guess he played over his head to the extent of the BEST EVER

 

[SSOG]

Do you read before posting, or do you just use the force to respond? Seriously, quote me when I ever said I disagree with using PPG to compare players that played an equal amount of time in one given season (which was the very sound example that you posted). Go on, I'll be waiting. Still trying to find that post? Awesome, keep going...Also, by your own postings, you said that by getting Kevin Faulk and inserting him when SJAX was injured would make your combo the 6th best in the league last year. Wait, wouldn't DWill be ahead in the race, then? I think you just proved what I was saying. Thank you.

If the players played an equal amount of time, then you aren't comparing them based on points PER GAME... you're comparing them on total points. The whole purpose of "points per game" is to compare points scored by players who played a different number of games (just like the whole point of "yards per attempt" is to compare yards gained by players with two different numbers of attempts). Also, my point was never that SJax was better than DeAngelo last year- that wasn't why I brought up PPG in the first place. My point was that every time SJax has been on the field, he's been a stud. Someone can be a stud without doing better than the best fantasy back in the league.

over his head?for 16 games?maybe one or two weeks but 16 games?SJax won't regress? well that's good because if he DOUBLES his usual output it won't equal DeWill's seasonjust watch tape guys, DeWill is the best RB in football not named Peterson and even ADP can't do some of the things DeWill doesOnly back in history to go 5.5ypc with 18 TDs in a 16 game scheduleso i guess he played over his head to the extent of the BEST EVER

Plenty of RBs have played over their heads for 16 games. As a rookie, Mike Anderson had 1500/15 rushing (with a 5.0 ypc). I think, looking back on his career, most people would agree that he was playing over his head. Jamal Lewis's second-best rushing season was 1364 yards- it seems incredibly clear that when he ran for 2066 yards he was playing over his head. Jamal Anderson had 410/1846/14 in 1998. His second best season was 232/1055/5. Jamal Anderson was playing *WAY* over his head in 1998. Willie Parker scored 16 TDs in 2006. His second best TD total is... 5. Parker played over his head in 2006. For examples from other positions... it sure looks like Braylon Edwards was playing over his head in 2007.I'm not saying that DeAngelo was definitely playing over his head last year, I'm just saying that until he does it again, the possibility always exists that he was playing over his head (and yes, it's more than possible to play over your head for a full 16 game schedule).Also, SJax's usual output is 126 yards and .75 TDs per game (2011/12 per season). That's 273 fantasy points a year based on his 3-year averages. DeAngelo Williams scored 284 fantasy points last year, which means if Williams regresses just 5%, or if SJax performs just 5% over his 3-year averages, then SJax will outperform Williams. And if SJax performs at peak level, he'll blow Williams out of the water- SJax's best season was 329 fantasy points, 45 points better than DeAngelo's best season (i.e. DeAngelo could have scored SEVEN MORE TDS last year and SJax's best season still would have outpaced his). And in PPR leagues, the difference is even more ludicrous- SJax's 419 points in '06 is over 100 points better than Williams' 306 last year. Williams could have scored 38 TDs last year... and SJax's 2006 would still have been worth more points in a PPR league than Williams' 2008.Also, that whole "18 TDs and 5.5 ypc" stat is nonsense and selective statistics. It's gerrymandering the cutoffs to suit your point. O.J. Simpson, for instance, had 5.5 yards per carry and 23 total TDs in 14 games in 1973... but DeAngelo is the best ever? Sanders had 2000 yards at 6+ yards per carry... but DeAngelo is the best ever? Jim Brown had 17 TDs and 5.9 yards per carry *IN A TWELVE GAME SEASON*... but DeAngelo is the best ever? DeAngelo Williams had the best season by any fantasy back last year, but let's not get carried away, here... last year was a weak year for fantasy backs. In FBG scoring, DeAngelo's 2008 season is the 12th best fantasy season of the last 5 years (behind '06 Tomlinson, '05 Alexander, '05 Johnson, '06 Johnson, '06 SJax, '05 Tomlinson, '07 Tomlinson, '04 Alexander, '05 Barber, '04 Barber, and '04 Tomlinson).

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Also worth noting that DeAngelo's playoff game was another "bust"- 7.9 fantasy points in PPR- which just further highlights how boom or bust DeAngelo was last year.

Calling DeAngelo a bust in that playoff game is ridiculous. Delhomme didn't give the offense much of a chance to do anything due to his 6 turnovers in that game.

So? That's one of the risks you run when your RB plays with Jake Delhomme. Besides, to repeat a theme... it's never stopped Steven Jackson. St. Louis turned the ball over 31 times last year, 27th in the league. Carolina turned it over 19, good for 6th in the league. Despite this, Jackson had one <10 point game (a game where he made it halfway through the second quarter), and Williams had 5 (counting the playoffs).

Williams only carried the ball 12 times against the Cardinals in the playoffs. In case you missed that game, the Panthers got down early and pretty much abandoned the run. That wasn't Williams fault.

Are you not reading the thread? SJax dealt with that EVERY GAME and still only had a sub 10 point game in the game he got hurt early.That's the entire point of what we're saying here. Sjax is immune to stuff going to crap around him, because even when it does, he still performs nearly as well as DeAngelo does when stuff is going great around him. When stuff goes to crap around DeAngelo, he does not perform. With the way things change in the NFL, who's to say that STL won't see fewer of those "#### hits the fan" games and Carolina won't see more of them? But even if those things don't change, Sjax still performs nearly as well when he's healthy anyway.In this respect, DeAngelo has nowhere to go but down. Sjax has nowhere to go but up.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

This is the question. If you look strictly at the last half of '08 for Williams, he's far and away the top back available. I think of him and Carolina as the next Priest Holmes and KC.

History is littered with guys who had huge 2nd halves and significantly dropped off next season. With every single one of them, the argument was "just look at how they performed in the 2nd half of the season, everything really gelled and that's what we can expect going forward now".William Green, Kevin Jones, Julius Jones, Reggie Bush, Deshaun Foster are just a few that come to mind off the top of my head.

I'm not saying Williams is going to regress anything like those guys, but if anything history has shown us that guys who have blown up in the second half of the season are far, far, FAR less likely to continue producing at anywhere near that production the next year than someone who produced similarly throughout the entire year.

The whole "the line gelled" and "things really clicked for him at the half-way point" statements are pure theorycraft that sound good in your head but have no actual application towards what actually happens.

 

[bonesman]

For the sake of this thread, I just say we end this argument. It's really not helping anyone anymore, and I'll just agree to disagree with you. Is that cool with you?

I disagree. This whole discussion is VERY helpful to me.Perhaps you should just admit that you're wrong and that you're not as well versed in statistical mathematics and comparing them as you might've thought?

 

[easyee]

For the sake of this thread, I just say we end this argument. It's really not helping anyone anymore, and I'll just agree to disagree with you. Is that cool with you?

I disagree. This whole discussion is VERY helpful to me.Perhaps you should just admit that you're wrong and that you're not as well versed in statistical mathematics and comparing them as you might've thought?

Uh, wrong? Huh? I fail to see any stats here that would convince me to take SJAX anywhere near DWILL. Sure, SSOD has used a model to say that, WHEN HE IS ON THE FIELD, SJAX is a stud. That is fine and I have no argument with that. However, he has missed 4 games for 2 years in a row now. My entire point is that by JUST using PPG, SSOD is letting people think that SJAX will give you great numbers over an entire season. If you look at the whole picture, though, which is what I am attempting to do, you can see that the WHEN HE IS ON THE FIELD qualifier is a very, very lage qualifier. If you guys are comfortable taking a guy with a horrible reliability record, that's fine. Me? I'll take the guy that hasn't been injured for 2 years in a row and be perfectly happy with it.Also, the whole point of ending the conversation was to let others have some say in this w/o having to read the merry-go-round argument that was occuring. I was attempting to be mature about the situation and just say "let people make up their own mind based upon what we have said". It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's just a difference of opinion that we have as to what stat is most useful in helping you select a premier RB.Finally, if you want some more stats, which I was too tired to post last night, here they are: 4.1, 4.4, 4.2, 4.1. Those are the YPC stats of SJAX for the entire time that he has been a starter. Not too great, IMO. 254, 346, 237, 253. Those are his total carries per year since he has been a starter. Again, only 1 time going over 300 carries in his career? Awesome. 1046, 1528, 1002, 1042. Those are his yards/year. So far, from what I am reading, the statistical outlier over 4 sets of data seems to be his second season as a starter. Again, there is no way to predict injuries, but from what I am seeing, his ability to stay on the field is outweighed by his ability to miss games and produce mediocre rushing totals during his career. Throw in the receiving numbers, which are quite nice, and he still has only 2/4 seasons where he hits double digits in TD. So, for me, I'd rather take DWILL, who has been healthy for 2 straigt years, over SJAX, who has not. Draw your own conclusions from this argument, but remember, you can pick any single statistic out of a hat to prove a point, but when looking at an entire picture, conclusions drawn tend to vary.

 

[SSOG]

Uh, wrong? Huh? I fail to see any stats here that would convince me to take SJAX anywhere near DWILL. Sure, SSOD has used a model to say that, WHEN HE IS ON THE FIELD, SJAX is a stud. That is fine and I have no argument with that. However, he has missed 4 games for 2 years in a row now. My entire point is that by JUST using PPG, SSOD is letting people think that SJAX will give you great numbers over an entire season. If you look at the whole picture, though, which is what I am attempting to do, you can see that the WHEN HE IS ON THE FIELD qualifier is a very, very lage qualifier. If you guys are comfortable taking a guy with a horrible reliability record, that's fine. Me? I'll take the guy that hasn't been injured for 2 years in a row and be perfectly happy with it.Also, the whole point of ending the conversation was to let others have some say in this w/o having to read the merry-go-round argument that was occuring. I was attempting to be mature about the situation and just say "let people make up their own mind based upon what we have said". It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's just a difference of opinion that we have as to what stat is most useful in helping you select a premier RB.Finally, if you want some more stats, which I was too tired to post last night, here they are: 4.1, 4.4, 4.2, 4.1. Those are the YPC stats of SJAX for the entire time that he has been a starter. Not too great, IMO. 254, 346, 237, 253. Those are his total carries per year since he has been a starter. Again, only 1 time going over 300 carries in his career? Awesome. 1046, 1528, 1002, 1042. Those are his yards/year. So far, from what I am reading, the statistical outlier over 4 sets of data seems to be his second season as a starter. Again, there is no way to predict injuries, but from what I am seeing, his ability to stay on the field is outweighed by his ability to miss games and produce mediocre rushing totals during his career. Throw in the receiving numbers, which are quite nice, and he still has only 2/4 seasons where he hits double digits in TD. So, for me, I'd rather take DWILL, who has been healthy for 2 straigt years, over SJAX, who has not. Draw your own conclusions from this argument, but remember, you can pick any single statistic out of a hat to prove a point, but when looking at an entire picture, conclusions drawn tend to vary.

Okay, so let me get this straight. You agree that PPG demonstrates how good SJax is when he's not injured. You say that you won't take SJax because he's always injured... but then you say that you can't predict injuries. If you're downgrading SJax because of his injuries, then aren't you effectively predicting injuries? You're taking Williams instead of Jackson because you PREDICT that Jackson is more likely to miss time with INJURIES this year.

 

[Knobs]

There's a lot of stupid in this thread. Personally, I don't think it's all that close - I'll take SJax every time. I've seen plenty of good arguments against him but none of those arguments have shown up in this thread.

Keep up the good work SSOG. I am also a ppg guy, though I understand some are not.

 

[easyee]

Uh, wrong? Huh? I fail to see any stats here that would convince me to take SJAX anywhere near DWILL. Sure, SSOD has used a model to say that, WHEN HE IS ON THE FIELD, SJAX is a stud. That is fine and I have no argument with that. However, he has missed 4 games for 2 years in a row now. My entire point is that by JUST using PPG, SSOD is letting people think that SJAX will give you great numbers over an entire season. If you look at the whole picture, though, which is what I am attempting to do, you can see that the WHEN HE IS ON THE FIELD qualifier is a very, very lage qualifier. If you guys are comfortable taking a guy with a horrible reliability record, that's fine. Me? I'll take the guy that hasn't been injured for 2 years in a row and be perfectly happy with it.Also, the whole point of ending the conversation was to let others have some say in this w/o having to read the merry-go-round argument that was occuring. I was attempting to be mature about the situation and just say "let people make up their own mind based upon what we have said". It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's just a difference of opinion that we have as to what stat is most useful in helping you select a premier RB.Finally, if you want some more stats, which I was too tired to post last night, here they are: 4.1, 4.4, 4.2, 4.1. Those are the YPC stats of SJAX for the entire time that he has been a starter. Not too great, IMO. 254, 346, 237, 253. Those are his total carries per year since he has been a starter. Again, only 1 time going over 300 carries in his career? Awesome. 1046, 1528, 1002, 1042. Those are his yards/year. So far, from what I am reading, the statistical outlier over 4 sets of data seems to be his second season as a starter. Again, there is no way to predict injuries, but from what I am seeing, his ability to stay on the field is outweighed by his ability to miss games and produce mediocre rushing totals during his career. Throw in the receiving numbers, which are quite nice, and he still has only 2/4 seasons where he hits double digits in TD. So, for me, I'd rather take DWILL, who has been healthy for 2 straigt years, over SJAX, who has not. Draw your own conclusions from this argument, but remember, you can pick any single statistic out of a hat to prove a point, but when looking at an entire picture, conclusions drawn tend to vary.

Okay, so let me get this straight. You agree that PPG demonstrates how good SJax is when he's not injured. You say that you won't take SJax because he's always injured... but then you say that you can't predict injuries. If you're downgrading SJax because of his injuries, then aren't you effectively predicting injuries? You're taking Williams instead of Jackson because you PREDICT that Jackson is more likely to miss time with INJURIES this year.

Ugh...I guess that you failed reading comprehension when you were younger. Have the last word, I really don't care anymore.

 

[puckalicious]

Uh, wrong? Huh? I fail to see any stats here that would convince me to take SJAX anywhere near DWILL. Sure, SSOD has used a model to say that, WHEN HE IS ON THE FIELD, SJAX is a stud. That is fine and I have no argument with that. However, he has missed 4 games for 2 years in a row now. My entire point is that by JUST using PPG, SSOD is letting people think that SJAX will give you great numbers over an entire season. If you look at the whole picture, though, which is what I am attempting to do, you can see that the WHEN HE IS ON THE FIELD qualifier is a very, very lage qualifier. If you guys are comfortable taking a guy with a horrible reliability record, that's fine. Me? I'll take the guy that hasn't been injured for 2 years in a row and be perfectly happy with it.

Also, the whole point of ending the conversation was to let others have some say in this w/o having to read the merry-go-round argument that was occuring. I was attempting to be mature about the situation and just say "let people make up their own mind based upon what we have said". It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's just a difference of opinion that we have as to what stat is most useful in helping you select a premier RB.

Finally, if you want some more stats, which I was too tired to post last night, here they are: 4.1, 4.4, 4.2, 4.1. Those are the YPC stats of SJAX for the entire time that he has been a starter. Not too great, IMO. 254, 346, 237, 253. Those are his total carries per year since he has been a starter. Again, only 1 time going over 300 carries in his career? Awesome. 1046, 1528, 1002, 1042. Those are his yards/year. So far, from what I am reading, the statistical outlier over 4 sets of data seems to be his second season as a starter. Again, there is no way to predict injuries, but from what I am seeing, his ability to stay on the field is outweighed by his ability to miss games and produce mediocre rushing totals during his career. Throw in the receiving numbers, which are quite nice, and he still has only 2/4 seasons where he hits double digits in TD. So, for me, I'd rather take DWILL, who has been healthy for 2 straigt years, over SJAX, who has not. Draw your own conclusions from this argument, but remember, you can pick any single statistic out of a hat to prove a point, but when looking at an entire picture, conclusions drawn tend to vary.

Okay, so let me get this straight. You agree that PPG demonstrates how good SJax is when he's not injured. You say that you won't take SJax because he's always injured... but then you say that you can't predict injuries. If you're downgrading SJax because of his injuries, then aren't you effectively predicting injuries? You're taking Williams instead of Jackson because you PREDICT that Jackson is more likely to miss time with INJURIES this year.

Ugh...I guess that you failed reading comprehension when you were younger. Have the last word, I really don't care anymore.

When you finally get over yourself, you'll understand the difference between season totals and points/game.

 

[easyee]

Uh, wrong? Huh? I fail to see any stats here that would convince me to take SJAX anywhere near DWILL. Sure, SSOD has used a model to say that, WHEN HE IS ON THE FIELD, SJAX is a stud. That is fine and I have no argument with that. However, he has missed 4 games for 2 years in a row now. My entire point is that by JUST using PPG, SSOD is letting people think that SJAX will give you great numbers over an entire season. If you look at the whole picture, though, which is what I am attempting to do, you can see that the WHEN HE IS ON THE FIELD qualifier is a very, very lage qualifier. If you guys are comfortable taking a guy with a horrible reliability record, that's fine. Me? I'll take the guy that hasn't been injured for 2 years in a row and be perfectly happy with it.

Also, the whole point of ending the conversation was to let others have some say in this w/o having to read the merry-go-round argument that was occuring. I was attempting to be mature about the situation and just say "let people make up their own mind based upon what we have said". It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's just a difference of opinion that we have as to what stat is most useful in helping you select a premier RB.

Finally, if you want some more stats, which I was too tired to post last night, here they are: 4.1, 4.4, 4.2, 4.1. Those are the YPC stats of SJAX for the entire time that he has been a starter. Not too great, IMO. 254, 346, 237, 253. Those are his total carries per year since he has been a starter. Again, only 1 time going over 300 carries in his career? Awesome. 1046, 1528, 1002, 1042. Those are his yards/year. So far, from what I am reading, the statistical outlier over 4 sets of data seems to be his second season as a starter. Again, there is no way to predict injuries, but from what I am seeing, his ability to stay on the field is outweighed by his ability to miss games and produce mediocre rushing totals during his career. Throw in the receiving numbers, which are quite nice, and he still has only 2/4 seasons where he hits double digits in TD. So, for me, I'd rather take DWILL, who has been healthy for 2 straigt years, over SJAX, who has not. Draw your own conclusions from this argument, but remember, you can pick any single statistic out of a hat to prove a point, but when looking at an entire picture, conclusions drawn tend to vary.

Okay, so let me get this straight. You agree that PPG demonstrates how good SJax is when he's not injured. You say that you won't take SJax because he's always injured... but then you say that you can't predict injuries. If you're downgrading SJax because of his injuries, then aren't you effectively predicting injuries? You're taking Williams instead of Jackson because you PREDICT that Jackson is more likely to miss time with INJURIES this year.

Ugh...I guess that you failed reading comprehension when you were younger. Have the last word, I really don't care anymore.

When you finally get over yourself, you'll understand the difference between season totals and points/game.

Meh, thought I was done, but here's one last tidbit ripped from the "Why no love for DWill?" thread.75% of Steven Jackson TDs were in 3 games.

Yet another example of why using PPG as the only stat to judge a player has fail just written all over it.

 

[abe froman]

Uh, wrong? Huh? I fail to see any stats here that would convince me to take SJAX anywhere near DWILL. Sure, SSOD has used a model to say that, WHEN HE IS ON THE FIELD, SJAX is a stud. That is fine and I have no argument with that. However, he has missed 4 games for 2 years in a row now. My entire point is that by JUST using PPG, SSOD is letting people think that SJAX will give you great numbers over an entire season. If you look at the whole picture, though, which is what I am attempting to do, you can see that the WHEN HE IS ON THE FIELD qualifier is a very, very lage qualifier. If you guys are comfortable taking a guy with a horrible reliability record, that's fine. Me? I'll take the guy that hasn't been injured for 2 years in a row and be perfectly happy with it.

Also, the whole point of ending the conversation was to let others have some say in this w/o having to read the merry-go-round argument that was occuring. I was attempting to be mature about the situation and just say "let people make up their own mind based upon what we have said". It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's just a difference of opinion that we have as to what stat is most useful in helping you select a premier RB.

Finally, if you want some more stats, which I was too tired to post last night, here they are: 4.1, 4.4, 4.2, 4.1. Those are the YPC stats of SJAX for the entire time that he has been a starter. Not too great, IMO. 254, 346, 237, 253. Those are his total carries per year since he has been a starter. Again, only 1 time going over 300 carries in his career? Awesome. 1046, 1528, 1002, 1042. Those are his yards/year. So far, from what I am reading, the statistical outlier over 4 sets of data seems to be his second season as a starter. Again, there is no way to predict injuries, but from what I am seeing, his ability to stay on the field is outweighed by his ability to miss games and produce mediocre rushing totals during his career. Throw in the receiving numbers, which are quite nice, and he still has only 2/4 seasons where he hits double digits in TD. So, for me, I'd rather take DWILL, who has been healthy for 2 straigt years, over SJAX, who has not. Draw your own conclusions from this argument, but remember, you can pick any single statistic out of a hat to prove a point, but when looking at an entire picture, conclusions drawn tend to vary.

Okay, so let me get this straight. You agree that PPG demonstrates how good SJax is when he's not injured. You say that you won't take SJax because he's always injured... but then you say that you can't predict injuries. If you're downgrading SJax because of his injuries, then aren't you effectively predicting injuries? You're taking Williams instead of Jackson because you PREDICT that Jackson is more likely to miss time with INJURIES this year.

Ugh...I guess that you failed reading comprehension when you were younger. Have the last word, I really don't care anymore.

When you finally get over yourself, you'll understand the difference between season totals and points/game.

Meh, thought I was done, but here's one last tidbit ripped from the "Why no love for DWill?" thread.75% of Steven Jackson TDs were in 3 games.

Yet another example of why using PPG as the only stat to judge a player has fail just written all over it.

WHAT IS THE TITLE OF THE DA/V\N THREAD???? Who will have the better season right? Not who will have the better PPG..?.. ok if SSOG wants to start a PPG thread then kick rocks, and start one. When I hear "season" I think at least 16-17 games, but that's just me. As for just pulling straws giving us Kevin Faulk stats in the WEEKS SJax missed-as if we wouldnt know enough to roster someone more worthy of a start, me I would of definately started Peyton Hillis in that spread as he was obviously due to break out and would of outscored your faulk. <Do you see how dumb that sounded?? Anyone can pull a random name that put up good numbers in the games that SJax missed and make an uneducated point like yours. It just as easy could of been a more legit starter like Cedric Benson, or Willie Parker getting the start in SJax's absence instead of Faulk in which that owner would of suffered GREATLY given both of their poor performances..I guess noone else noticed that he just happened to pluck Faulk out who broke 100yds 2x in that span including a 7 reception performance and a TD.. SSOG You make me laugh and it has nothing to do with what SJAX will do this year..

 

[SSOG]

WHAT IS THE TITLE OF THE DA/V\N THREAD???? Who will have the better season right? Not who will have the better PPG..?.. ok if SSOG wants to start a PPG thread then kick rocks, and start one. When I hear "season" I think at least 16-17 games, but that's just me. As for just pulling straws giving us Kevin Faulk stats in the WEEKS SJax missed-as if we wouldnt know enough to roster someone more worthy of a start, me I would of definately started Peyton Hillis in that spread as he was obviously due to break out and would of outscored your faulk. <Do you see how dumb that sounded?? Anyone can pull a random name that put up good numbers in the games that SJax missed and make an uneducated point like yours. It just as easy could of been a more legit starter like Cedric Benson, or Willie Parker getting the start in SJax's absence instead of Faulk in which that owner would of suffered GREATLY given both of their poor performances..

I guess noone else noticed that he just happened to pluck Faulk out who broke 100yds 2x in that span including a 7 reception performance and a TD.. SSOG You make me laugh and it has nothing to do with what SJAX will do this year..

Yes, the title is who will have a better season, asking who will have a better season THIS YEAR. The fact that Steven Jackson missed time last year isn't particularly relevant in a discussion of how he's going to do this year, now is it? Does your league penalize you for games missed by an RB in year N-1?Also, I used "Kevin Faulk" as a placeholder for "The 33rd best RB in the league in terms of points per game". I wasn't using Kevin Faulk's actual production in the actual games that Steven Jackson missed. Kevin Faulk scored 9 ppg over the course of the season (an average I'm sure we all agree is "pretty low"). If you had a Kevin Faulk-type RB- a back that could have gotten you a measly 9 points per game for the four weeks that SJax missed- then the combo of Steven Jackson + (insert name of low-end RB3 who averages 9 points per game) would have finished 6th last year. I don't have the faintest clue exactly how many points Kevin Faulk scored in the 4 game SJax missed- as I said, I was simply using him as a placeholder for "low-end RB3".

If it makes you more comfortable, let's phrase it this way. 9 PPG is low-end RB3 production. If you could have managed to scrape together just 9 measly points per game during the 4-game span that SJax missed, the combo of SJax + RB3 would have combined to finish 6th last year. True, it's possible you could have averaged fewer PPG with SJax out... but you just as easily could have averaged more, too. My point is that 9 points per game is a relatively low standard to reach, and if you reached even that relatively low standard, then SJax's season totals were studly.

If I'm given a choice between a QB who is going to score 320 points in 16 weeks and another QB who is going to score 300 points in 12 weeks, I would take the second QB every single day of the week... because I'm not taking a 0 in the weeks he misses, and it'd be silly to pretend I was by comparing the season totals of the two. Same basic principal applies.

 

[Tau837]

This is the question. If you look strictly at the last half of '08 for Williams, he's far and away the top back available. I think of him and Carolina as the next Priest Holmes and KC.

History is littered with guys who had huge 2nd halves and significantly dropped off next season. With every single one of them, the argument was "just look at how they performed in the 2nd half of the season, everything really gelled and that's what we can expect going forward now".William Green, Kevin Jones, Julius Jones, Reggie Bush, Deshaun Foster are just a few that come to mind off the top of my head.

I'm not saying Williams is going to regress anything like those guys, but if anything history has shown us that guys who have blown up in the second half of the season are far, far, FAR less likely to continue producing at anywhere near that production the next year than someone who produced similarly throughout the entire year.

The whole "the line gelled" and "things really clicked for him at the half-way point" statements are pure theorycraft that sound good in your head but have no actual application towards what actually happens.

Williams' second half was 153/993/15 rushing... 6.5 ypc. I find it hard to believe you just compared that to good second half performances by William Green, Kevin Jones, Julius Jones, Reggie Bush, and Deshaun Foster... I mean, seriously, I think you must be trying to be disingenuous with this post.I think it would be more relevant to determine the list of the best second half performances in history, see where Williams' ranks (best ever?), and then see what the RBs around him in that list did going forward after those performances.

 

[SSOG]

Williams' second half was 153/993/15 rushing... 6.5 ypc. I find it hard to believe you just compared that to good second half performances by William Green, Kevin Jones, Julius Jones, Reggie Bush, and Deshaun Foster... I mean, seriously, I think you must be trying to be disingenuous with this post.I think it would be more relevant to determine the list of the best second half performances in history, see where Williams' ranks (best ever?), and then see what the RBs around him in that list did going forward after those performances.

In fairness, the Bush comparison isn't as ludicrous as it might first seem. In 2006, Reggie Bush had 788/8 rushing/receiving (4.8 ypc) over the second half, which isn't nearly the same level as what DeAngelo hit but which is still very impressive, especially when you consider he had 519/0 (2.6 ypc) over the first half. I mean, going from 2.6 ypc to 4.8 ypc is a pretty dramatic jump... but despite that, Bush's averages in later years were in line with his WHOLE SEASON averages and not with any half-season splits. The point is that just because a guy has the most unreal half-season ever doesn't mean that said half-season holds more predictive value going forward than his whole-season results (which are impressive enough on their own without resorting to embellishing with favorable splits). In the past, ranking a player or a team based on 2nd half results in favor of using whole-season results has usually proven to be a bad move (Kevan Barlow and Reggie Bush being the biggest examples in recent memory).Anyway, ask and you shall receive. I hit the Data Dominator looking for the best week 10-17 performances in the database in terms of fantasy points. It's not perfect (most backs played 8 games during that span, but a small percentage had week 10 byes and only played 7 games), but it's the best I can do. The best "second half split" was exactly what I thought it would be- Larry Johnson's mind-boggling 2005 season where he somehow managed to post 1472/15 combined rushing and receiving over the final 8 games of the season (and he had another 155/2 in the week before). His final 9 games of the 2005 season alone would have ranked him as the #3 fantasy RB last year, less than 20 points shy of DeAngelo's 16-game totals.What did that unbelievable tear mean going forward? Johnson posted essentially identical cumulative stats in 2006, but his high ypa (5.2 over the second half of the season) proved to be entirely unsustainable, falling to 4.3 (much more in line with his career averages) in '06 and falling again to 3.5 in '07.DeAngelo's second half was the 5th best second half since 2002 in fantasy terms, and DeAngelo's first half didn't crack the top 200 first halves list. The second best second-half finish was Tomlinson's '06 campaign (which isn't saying much, since Tomlinson's first half was essentially just as impressive- he eclipsed 200 points in both halves). After that came Tomlinson '03, although I don't know how much predictive power that holds, either, since his first half was pretty solid that year, too (1000 total yards, although abnormally low TD total at 5).The last name on the list of "better fantasy second halves than DeAngelo since 2002" is a very interesting one. The back in question started that season posting 1100 total yards @ 4.06 ypc with 4 total TDs. He ended that season going for 1237 yards @ 4.76 ypc with 12 TDs. None of that is what's interesting, though- the reason it's interesting is because the back in question is... Steven Jackson, circa 2006.While it's fun looking through the season splits for the past 7 years, I don't think it's particularly relevant. The majority of backs who had great second halves were backs that also had great first halves (resulting in great seasons). Of the backs who had great second halves but didn't show up on the list of quality first halves, most were guys who were either injured (Domanick Williams '04, Edgerrin James '03), or who weren't starters to open the season (Larry Johnson '05, Clinton Portis '02). There was really only one good match- Frank Gore '06. He opened that season with 919/3 (@4.7 ypc), and closed with 1260/6 (@6.0 ypc). The year after he had 1538/6 and only managed 4.3 yards per carry, which really just goes to show that a ypc over 6 is a fluke and totally unsustainable, no matter who you are.This is all pretty interesting, although I don't know what it demonstrates other than "if an RB absolutely blows up for 8 games, then historically that performance is totally unsustainable and holds less predictive power going forward than the RB's season totals".

 

[cvnpoka]

i proly take deangelo, but its really close.

the anti sjax crowd is pretty horrible at forming a logical and clear argument.

i would just say, its slightly more likely sjax is gonna get hurt. teams will stack the box only slightly less vs the panthers due to steve smith. the rams will certainly be behind and passing much more. of course, stewart may vulture and take 100 carries from deangelo. and we dont even know how deangelo will respond to 300+ carry workload.

both are sickly talented. its really close.

anyway, look at sjax in 2006. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JackSt00.htm. wonder how different this argument would be back then.

 

[Bayhawks]

This is all pretty interesting, although I don't know what it demonstrates other than "if an RB absolutely blows up for 8 games, then historically that performance is totally unsustainable and holds less predictive power going forward than the RB's season totals".

This thread (and the other SJax threads) have caused me to look in different ways at some things the last few days. One thing I think is important to note is that Williams "2nd half" last year wasn't really a 2nd half. He had 4 below average games to start the season, & then went off over the last 12 games. As has been noted, Carolina's O-line had been somewhat shuffled during the offseason (prior to the 2008 season), and perhaps it took them a while to gel. Steve Smith was sitting out the 1st two games, so that could have been a factor. There were offseason reports that Williams looked better, more mature, better shape, etc than he had his first few years. Stewart was the hot rookie, etc. After those 1st 4 games, however, Stewart got more touches/game, which coincided with his improved FF (& NFL) performance.I don't know that this means that Williams hot 12 games means any more than a hot 8 game streak. It is just something to note. Furthermore, I've read (several times) that SJax owners can "protect" themselves by drafting another RB to fill in if SJax gets hurt. I posted this in another thread, but I feel it's relevant here:Without going through an entire mock draft, the bottom line is this: if you subscribe to the idea that drafting SJax doesn't pose any risk because you can just plug in another RB if he gets hurt isn't entirely accurate. With SJax, you get a weekly advantage at that RB spot against most other RBs. Without him, you lose that advantage. What had been a strength, becomes a weakness. To protect yourself, you would have to use an early or middle round pick to get that "insurance" RB. If you have the 6th or 7th pick, & wait until round 5 to draft that "insurance" back, you would likely be choosing between LJ (ADP 52), Moreno (54), Ward (56), Parker (58), & J. Stewart (59). Sure, you don't go from SJax's 15.9 PPG (non-PPR) to zero, but you do likely drop from 15.9 PPG to around 10 (LJ, Ward, Parker, Stewart all averaged about 10 PPG last year). Those 6 points/game could be the difference between winning those weeks or not. And, if you don't have to use that 5th round pick on an "insurance" RB, you could draft a starting WR, stronger QB, stronger TE, etc. To me, I've determined that SJax is a risk/reward pick. If you want to win big, he's a good guy to have. If you like toplay it safe with your 1st round pick, you might want to look elsewhere.

 

[easyee]

This is all pretty interesting, although I don't know what it demonstrates other than "if an RB absolutely blows up for 8 games, then historically that performance is totally unsustainable and holds less predictive power going forward than the RB's season totals".

This thread (and the other SJax threads) have caused me to look in different ways at some things the last few days. One thing I think is important to note is that Williams "2nd half" last year wasn't really a 2nd half. He had 4 below average games to start the season, & then went off over the last 12 games. As has been noted, Carolina's O-line had been somewhat shuffled during the offseason (prior to the 2008 season), and perhaps it took them a while to gel. Steve Smith was sitting out the 1st two games, so that could have been a factor. There were offseason reports that Williams looked better, more mature, better shape, etc than he had his first few years. Stewart was the hot rookie, etc. After those 1st 4 games, however, Stewart got more touches/game, which coincided with his improved FF (& NFL) performance.I don't know that this means that Williams hot 12 games means any more than a hot 8 game streak. It is just something to note. Furthermore, I've read (several times) that SJax owners can "protect" themselves by drafting another RB to fill in if SJax gets hurt. I posted this in another thread, but I feel it's relevant here:Without going through an entire mock draft, the bottom line is this: if you subscribe to the idea that drafting SJax doesn't pose any risk because you can just plug in another RB if he gets hurt isn't entirely accurate. With SJax, you get a weekly advantage at that RB spot against most other RBs. Without him, you lose that advantage. What had been a strength, becomes a weakness. To protect yourself, you would have to use an early or middle round pick to get that "insurance" RB. If you have the 6th or 7th pick, & wait until round 5 to draft that "insurance" back, you would likely be choosing between LJ (ADP 52), Moreno (54), Ward (56), Parker (58), & J. Stewart (59). Sure, you don't go from SJax's 15.9 PPG (non-PPR) to zero, but you do likely drop from 15.9 PPG to around 10 (LJ, Ward, Parker, Stewart all averaged about 10 PPG last year). Those 6 points/game could be the difference between winning those weeks or not. And, if you don't have to use that 5th round pick on an "insurance" RB, you could draft a starting WR, stronger QB, stronger TE, etc. To me, I've determined that SJax is a risk/reward pick. If you want to win big, he's a good guy to have. If you like toplay it safe with your 1st round pick, you might want to look elsewhere.

 

[Bayhawks]

This is all pretty interesting, although I don't know what it demonstrates other than "if an RB absolutely blows up for 8 games, then historically that performance is totally unsustainable and holds less predictive power going forward than the RB's season totals".

This thread (and the other SJax threads) have caused me to look in different ways at some things the last few days. One thing I think is important to note is that Williams "2nd half" last year wasn't really a 2nd half. He had 4 below average games to start the season, & then went off over the last 12 games. As has been noted, Carolina's O-line had been somewhat shuffled during the offseason (prior to the 2008 season), and perhaps it took them a while to gel. Steve Smith was sitting out the 1st two games, so that could have been a factor. There were offseason reports that Williams looked better, more mature, better shape, etc than he had his first few years. Stewart was the hot rookie, etc. After those 1st 4 games, however, Stewart got more touches/game, which coincided with his improved FF (& NFL) performance.

I don't know that this means that Williams hot 12 games means any more than a hot 8 game streak. It is just something to note.

Furthermore, I've read (several times) that SJax owners can "protect" themselves by drafting another RB to fill in if SJax gets hurt. I posted this in another thread, but I feel it's relevant here:

Without going through an entire mock draft, the bottom line is this: if you subscribe to the idea that drafting SJax doesn't pose any risk because you can just plug in another RB if he gets hurt isn't entirely accurate. With SJax, you get a weekly advantage at that RB spot against most other RBs. Without him, you lose that advantage. What had been a strength, becomes a weakness. To protect yourself, you would have to use an early or middle round pick to get that "insurance" RB. If you have the 6th or 7th pick, & wait until round 5 to draft that "insurance" back, you would likely be choosing between LJ (ADP 52), Moreno (54), Ward (56), Parker (58), & J. Stewart (59). Sure, you don't go from SJax's 15.9 PPG (non-PPR) to zero, but you do likely drop from 15.9 PPG to around 10 (LJ, Ward, Parker, Stewart all averaged about 10 PPG last year).

Those 6 points/game could be the difference between winning those weeks or not. And, if you don't have to use that 5th round pick on an "insurance" RB, you could draft a starting WR, stronger QB, stronger TE, etc.

To me, I've determined that SJax is a risk/reward pick. If you want to win big, he's a good guy to have. If you like toplay it safe with your 1st round pick, you might want to look elsewhere.

Thanks-reading about Jackson's PPG stats made me start thinking about this. IF he stays healthy, even with a weak StL team around him, he should put up great numbers. I just have to run a few mocks, and see if picking him and a serviceable "insurance" RB would be a wise choice or not.

 

[SSOG]

Thanks-reading about Jackson's PPG stats made me start thinking about this. IF he stays healthy, even with a weak StL team around him, he should put up great numbers. I just have to run a few mocks, and see if picking him and a serviceable "insurance" RB would be a wise choice or not.

The thing is, you don't need an "insurance" RB if you draft Jackson. You need an RB3. *EVERY* team needs an RB3, because RBs (*ALL* RBs) are big injury risks. Drafting Steven Jackson doesn't suddenly make RB3 a need- RB3 is a need whether you draft Jackson or not.Also, the difference between an "injury risk" like Jackson and a "clean bill of health" like Williams is far smaller than you'd think. Allow me to introduce you to a very old study titled Everybody is an Injury Risk. The study looked at RBs who played in 16 games in year N and saw how many games they played in year N+1. It then did the same for RBs who played in 15 games in year N, and RBs who played in 14 games in year N, and so on down the line. The conclusion? 52% of RBs who played in 16 games in year N wound up missing time in year N+1. RBs who played in 16 games in year N averaged 13.7 games in year N+1, while RBs who played only 8-12 games in year N averaged 12.4 games in year N+1- a difference of just over a game. Whether you draft Williams or Jackson, odds are you're going to be using your RB3 to do more than just fill in on a bye.

The study also didn't differentiate between backs who missed time with degenerative or chronic injuries and RBs who missed time with random, unrelated, non-predictive injuries. I suspect if you really parsed the data and looked at what happened to guys who suffered non-predictive injuries in year N, you'd find they pretty closely matched the "clean bill of health" guys in year N+1.

 

[millertyme1]

Only reason I'd see taking Jackson over Williams is because you don't have to spend a high pick to acquire his back up. I don't know how much longer that'll be true if Stewart continues to sit out (and ADP slides). I've always been a cuff person myself [and price of the backup always enters my mind]

Williams could very well put up silly LT-like #'s again this year. Better line, better team, I don't see much of a debate taking Jackson over Williams.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Also, the difference between an "injury risk" like Jackson and a "clean bill of health" like Williams is far smaller than you'd think. Allow me to introduce you to a very old study titled Everybody is an Injury Risk. The study looked at RBs who played in 16 games in year N and saw how many games they played in year N+1. It then did the same for RBs who played in 15 games in year N, and RBs who played in 14 games in year N, and so on down the line. The conclusion? 52% of RBs who played in 16 games in year N wound up missing time in year N+1. RBs who played in 16 games in year N averaged 13.7 games in year N+1, while RBs who played only 8-12 games in year N averaged 12.4 games in year N+1- a difference of just over a game. Whether you draft Williams or Jackson, odds are you're going to be using your RB3 to do more than just fill in on a bye.

The study also didn't differentiate between backs who missed time with degenerative or chronic injuries and RBs who missed time with random, unrelated, non-predictive injuries. I suspect if you really parsed the data and looked at what happened to guys who suffered non-predictive injuries in year N, you'd find they pretty closely matched the "clean bill of health" guys in year N+1.

This is the crux of my argument for Jackson. (talent and previous productivity aside) ALL RBS ARE SIGNIFICANT INJURY RISKS.Thank you for finding that study, I could not find it a couple of months ago when I needed it. Now it is in my sig.

 

[Bayhawks]

Thanks-reading about Jackson's PPG stats made me start thinking about this. IF he stays healthy, even with a weak StL team around him, he should put up great numbers. I just have to run a few mocks, and see if picking him and a serviceable "insurance" RB would be a wise choice or not.

The thing is, you don't need an "insurance" RB if you draft Jackson. You need an RB3. *EVERY* team needs an RB3, because RBs (*ALL* RBs) are big injury risks. Drafting Steven Jackson doesn't suddenly make RB3 a need- RB3 is a need whether you draft Jackson or not.Also, the difference between an "injury risk" like Jackson and a "clean bill of health" like Williams is far smaller than you'd think.

That's your take on it. RB3 is, by definition, not a need. If you only start 2 RB, you only NEED 2 RB. It would be unwise not to draft a RB3 (or QB2, or WR4, or TE2, or PK2, etc) but that doesn't make it a need. My post was addressing specifically those who have posted that plugging any old RB (I believe K Faulk was used as an example) would make SJax and this other RB a top RB. My point is, if you feel (as several people have posted) that you need a back to plug in IF SJax gets hurt, then you might pass up value at other positions by drafting your RB3 earlier than you might otherwise.

I'm also not arguing that Williams has a "clean bill of health," while Jackson is an injury risk. The simple truth is, however, that SJax has gotten nicked up the last two years. Obviously I'd be a little more concerned if he had knees issues on the same knee the last two years, but his history (IMO) can't be ignored. He is a big, fast RB. He doesn't shy away from contact. To me, those things are part of the reason that he does get nicked up. It's a byproduct of his running style. I'm considering picking SJax if he's available at my pick, but FOR ME, I would feel that I have to take a RB3 earlier than if my 1st round pick was a RB who hasn't missed 1/4 of the last 2 seasons.

Like I said, I feel he's a high risk/reward pick. IF he stays healthy, he should be a great value at 1.7. If he gets hurt, though, and misses significant time (more than a game or two), than he's not great value.

 

[Bayhawks]

This is the crux of my argument for Jackson. (talent and previous productivity aside) ALL RBS ARE SIGNIFICANT INJURY RISKS.Thank you for finding that study, I could not find it a couple of months ago when I needed it. Now it is in my sig.

I don't think saying all RBs are significant injury risks is accurate. I think the more accurate phrase should be that all football players (with the possible exception of kickers) are significant injury risks. Football is a violent, collision-based sport. However, I believe that the type of player can play a part in how likely he is to get injured. RBs who relish the contact, who look forward to dishing out some punishment will obviously have more collisions to deal with, and therefore, more chance for injury to occur.Furthermore, RBs who get high workloads, are more likely to be injured, just by the odds. If you get 300 touches a year, that's 300 times that 11 defensive players will be trying to tackle you. If you only get 150 touches, you are trying to be tackled 1/2 the time.Finally, while human muscles can (naturally, or with drugs) become larger & stronger; joints and tendons cannot. A back who is 235 lbs and runs a 4.4 is placing an enormous amount of stress on his joints and tendons, more stress than a back who weighs 200 lbs. More stress provides more opportunity for injuries.So, while I'm not doubting the veracity of this study, I'd like to see a study that compares RB touches, running style, body type, etc to injuries. I don't have the time (or resources) to conduct this type of study, but I'm inclined to believe that there would be some link.

 

[SSOG]

Only reason I'd see taking Jackson over Williams is because you don't have to spend a high pick to acquire his back up. I don't know how much longer that'll be true if Stewart continues to sit out (and ADP slides). I've always been a cuff person myself [and price of the backup always enters my mind]Williams could very well put up silly LT-like #'s again this year. Better line, better team, I don't see much of a debate taking Jackson over Williams.

Williams has never put up silly LT-like numbers. DeAngelo Williams' best season by far was last year, when he produced 284 points. From 2002-2007 (6 years), Tomlinson's *WORST* season was 287 points (his other five seasons, from worst to best, were 307, 310, 323, 346, and 431). Tomlinson's average during his 6-year prime was 334, which is 50 points (~8 TDs) better than DeAngelo did last year. PPR only exacerbates the difference- DeAngelo scored 306, while Tomlinson scored 340, 370, 374, 386, 446, and 487 (401 average). That's almost a full 100 point difference between the average Tomlinson season and the best Williams season.Williams' rushing numbers (1515/18) are very close to Tomlinson's averages over that span (1570/18), the biggest difference lies in the receiving numbers; Williams had 22/120/2, while Tomlinson averaged 67/500/2. Which is very important to note- Williams' lack of receiving skills definitely limit his upside.It's a key point that people aren't making, but DeAngelo's season might have been elite in the context of last year... but in a historical context, it's not nearly as elite. It's the 20th best fantasy season of the last 7 years. It would have ranked 5th in '02, 5th in '03, 4th in '04, 5th in '05, 4th in '06, or 2nd in '07- in a normal year, DeAngelo Williams is the 5th best RB in the league, not the #1 overall. Once again, it comes back to Williams being held back by his receiving numbers (22/120); of the 19 RB seasons that ranked ahead of DeAngelo's, only three came from a back that had fewer than 300 yards receiving (Shaun Alexander had 170 in '04 and 78 in his record setting '05, and Jamal Lewis had 205 during his 2000 yard season in '03). Of the other 16 top-20 seasons, five had 300-400 yards receiving, four had 400-500 yards receiving, three had 500-600 receiving, two had 600-700 receiving, one had 700-800, and one actually had over 800 yards receiving (guess who... Steven Jackson, 2006).As it currently stands, Williams' lack of receiving skills are a handicap that will likely hold him back from ever ascending to the LaDanian Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk, Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson level of fantasy dominance. The best hope for Williams is offered by Shaun Alexander, who managed to get two of those super-elite seasons with sub-par receiving numbers, although it took a pair of 20+ TD campaigns (including the interim scoring title) to pull it off.

 

[SSOG]

I don't think saying all RBs are significant injury risks is accurate. I think the more accurate phrase should be that all football players (with the possible exception of kickers) are significant injury risks. Football is a violent, collision-based sport. However, I believe that the type of player can play a part in how likely he is to get injured. RBs who relish the contact, who look forward to dishing out some punishment will obviously have more collisions to deal with, and therefore, more chance for injury to occur.Furthermore, RBs who get high workloads, are more likely to be injured, just by the odds. If you get 300 touches a year, that's 300 times that 11 defensive players will be trying to tackle you. If you only get 150 touches, you are trying to be tackled 1/2 the time.Finally, while human muscles can (naturally, or with drugs) become larger & stronger; joints and tendons cannot. A back who is 235 lbs and runs a 4.4 is placing an enormous amount of stress on his joints and tendons, more stress than a back who weighs 200 lbs. More stress provides more opportunity for injuries.So, while I'm not doubting the veracity of this study, I'd like to see a study that compares RB touches, running style, body type, etc to injuries. I don't have the time (or resources) to conduct this type of study, but I'm inclined to believe that there would be some link.

All of this sounds good on paper, but if it were really having a pronounced effect in the real world, it would have shown in the study. Playing style is strongly correlated from year to year. So is workload. If a player is a punishing runner in year N, more than likely he's going to be a punishing runner in year N+1. If a player is a workhorse in year N, more than likely he's going to be a workhorse in year N+1. If running style or workload were really noticeably impacting a player's chance of injury, then we'd be seeing a greater difference in the data between "healthy" backs and "injury prone" backs in year N+1. After all, that bruiser would be more likely to find himself in the "injury prone" category in year N, and he'd be more likely to miss time again in year N+1. The fact that the "healthy" and "injury prone" backs are missing a comparable amount of time tells us that it's DIFFERENT BACKS who are missing time from year to year, not the same backs over and over again (which is what we'd expect if something like running style or workload was the primary cause of missed time).

 

[Tau837]

Only reason I'd see taking Jackson over Williams is because you don't have to spend a high pick to acquire his back up. I don't know how much longer that'll be true if Stewart continues to sit out (and ADP slides). I've always been a cuff person myself [and price of the backup always enters my mind]Williams could very well put up silly LT-like #'s again this year. Better line, better team, I don't see much of a debate taking Jackson over Williams.

Williams has never put up silly LT-like numbers. DeAngelo Williams' best season by far was last year, when he produced 284 points. From 2002-2007 (6 years), Tomlinson's *WORST* season was 287 points (his other five seasons, from worst to best, were 307, 310, 323, 346, and 431). Tomlinson's average during his 6-year prime was 334, which is 50 points (~8 TDs) better than DeAngelo did last year. PPR only exacerbates the difference- DeAngelo scored 306, while Tomlinson scored 340, 370, 374, 386, 446, and 487 (401 average). That's almost a full 100 point difference between the average Tomlinson season and the best Williams season.Williams' rushing numbers (1515/18) are very close to Tomlinson's averages over that span (1570/18), the biggest difference lies in the receiving numbers; Williams had 22/120/2, while Tomlinson averaged 67/500/2. Which is very important to note- Williams' lack of receiving skills definitely limit his upside.It's a key point that people aren't making, but DeAngelo's season might have been elite in the context of last year... but in a historical context, it's not nearly as elite. It's the 20th best fantasy season of the last 7 years. It would have ranked 5th in '02, 5th in '03, 4th in '04, 5th in '05, 4th in '06, or 2nd in '07- in a normal year, DeAngelo Williams is the 5th best RB in the league, not the #1 overall. Once again, it comes back to Williams being held back by his receiving numbers (22/120); of the 19 RB seasons that ranked ahead of DeAngelo's, only three came from a back that had fewer than 300 yards receiving (Shaun Alexander had 170 in '04 and 78 in his record setting '05, and Jamal Lewis had 205 during his 2000 yard season in '03). Of the other 16 top-20 seasons, five had 300-400 yards receiving, four had 400-500 yards receiving, three had 500-600 receiving, two had 600-700 receiving, one had 700-800, and one actually had over 800 yards receiving (guess who... Steven Jackson, 2006).As it currently stands, Williams' lack of receiving skills are a handicap that will likely hold him back from ever ascending to the LaDanian Tomlinson, Marshall Faulk, Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson level of fantasy dominance. The best hope for Williams is offered by Shaun Alexander, who managed to get two of those super-elite seasons with sub-par receiving numbers, although it took a pair of 20+ TD campaigns (including the interim scoring title) to pull it off.

This is probably semantics, but I just want to distinguish between receiving skills and receiving opportunity. You have said here that Williams lacks receiving skills, which I take to mean you are saying he is not capable of being a good receiving RB. I disagree with that notion.As a rookie, Williams had 33/313/1 (9.5 ypr) on just 37 targets... pretty amazing receiving performance for a rookie RB IMO. In 2007, he had 23/177/1 (7.7 ypr) on 38 targets... but I think the reduced performance is at least partially explained by the fact that Delhomme was lost after 3 games and the Panthers had to rely on David Carr, 44 year old Testaverde, and rookie Moore at QB the rest of the season.Last year, Carolina was last in the league in passing attempts. Obviously, this is in large part due to the success of their running game. But note that Stewart had only 8 catches. If the Panthers have to play from behind more often, and thus run less often, IMO the net effect will be mitigated a bit for Williams, as he is the RB who would stand to get more receptions.

 

[Big]

OMG guys, if you don't understand statistics, then just keep it to yourself. There are two factors to evaluate SJAX:

1. How well will he do on average when in the game.

2. What is your opinion of how much he will be injured.

The ONLY way to properly evaluate #1 is to look at GAMES THE PLAYER PLAYED IN. All of this "I want to compare him to other backs equally so I must use all 16 games" is ridiculous. It is your attempt at letting the evaluation of #2 cloud your judgment of #1.

BTW, voted DWill because 10 of his last 12 weeks he was top 5 each week in scoring and I think 20 td's is doable again - JStew had 10 - that is the number that will go down. I think DWill will be consensus #1 pick in 2010, where he will be right in the middle of that 3-4 year stardom range that the best backs (Faulk, Tomlinson, etc) always enjoy. Needless to say I am praying he falls to 9, because we have teams that will draft Brees/Brady + Moss/Fitz in 1st round.

Been trolling for 2+ years since I last posted on this board, but this was driving me nuts...

Good talk.

 

[SSOG]

This is probably semantics, but I just want to distinguish between receiving skills and receiving opportunity. You have said here that Williams lacks receiving skills, which I take to mean you are saying he is not capable of being a good receiving RB. I disagree with that notion.As a rookie, Williams had 33/313/1 (9.5 ypr) on just 37 targets... pretty amazing receiving performance for a rookie RB IMO. In 2007, he had 23/177/1 (7.7 ypr) on 38 targets... but I think the reduced performance is at least partially explained by the fact that Delhomme was lost after 3 games and the Panthers had to rely on David Carr, 44 year old Testaverde, and rookie Moore at QB the rest of the season.Last year, Carolina was last in the league in passing attempts. Obviously, this is in large part due to the success of their running game. But note that Stewart had only 8 catches. If the Panthers have to play from behind more often, and thus run less often, IMO the net effect will be mitigated a bit for Williams, as he is the RB who would stand to get more receptions.

Valid points, all, but there's not much historical precedent for a low-reception RB to suddenly become a high-reception RB. Looking at the RBs with high receiving totals, the overwhelming majority are guys who have had high receiving totals in every healthy season for their career. There are a couple of names of guys who had high receiving totals early in their career only to see the totals drop off as years went on (Shaun Alexander is the best example- he posted 343 and 460 in his first two years as a starter, then dropped to 295, then to 170, and never again topped 100 yards receiving for the rest of his career). In fact, the only guy I could find from the past decade that started out slowly in the receiving department and then kicked it up after a couple of years was Eddie George (182 and 44 yards in his first two seasons as a starter, then five straight seasons of 250+).Besides, schematically, John Fox has never had a history of throwing to his starting RB. DeShaun Foster had 372 yards receiving mostly as a backup in '05, then 159 and 182 as the starter in '06 and '07. DeAngelo had 313 as a backup during his rookie season, but posted 121 as the starter. You're right that it may be too early to say that DeAngelo *CAN'T* be a good receiving RB, but the data certainly suggests that it's a longshot.

 

[SSOG]

OMG guys, if you don't understand statistics, then just keep it to yourself. There are two factors to evaluate SJAX:1. How well will he do on average when in the game.2. What is your opinion of how much he will be injured.The ONLY way to properly evaluate #1 is to look at GAMES THE PLAYER PLAYED IN. All of this "I want to compare him to other backs equally so I must use all 16 games" is ridiculous. It is your attempt at letting the evaluation of #2 cloud your judgment of #1.

Wow, that's exactly what I was trying to say, but far more clearly and concisely than I ever could have said it. Thanks, and see you again in 2 years, I guess.

 

[Big]

SSOG, I defended you on PPG, but not on the ranking of DWill against past seasons. There has to be an overlay of real football over fantasy football to give the numbers meaning. 3-4 years ago, the league was very different in terms of RBBC. And no one is remembering that DWill put up these numbers WHILE IN A RBBC!

I don't see why his last years numbers are a ceiling for DWill. JStew had 835/10. Carolina doesn't throw the ball. As a Saints fan, I see them a lot (watch NFC South games when not at Saints games). They are a run/defense team. What's frustrating (as a Saints fan) is Steve Smith will destroy you if you only play the run, yet they will always lean run. This is not going to change anytime soon. If this ends up a RBBC last year's percentages are a minimum split for DWill, especially considering JStew's injuries and time missed.

I'll say it again, IMO DWill is entering his prime, and last year was not nearly a fluke.

But I will say this, I have moved SJax up a few spots (from rb8 to rb5) in my rankings because of the insightful info in this thread - nice work.

 

[Big]

OMG guys, if you don't understand statistics, then just keep it to yourself. There are two factors to evaluate SJAX:1. How well will he do on average when in the game.2. What is your opinion of how much he will be injured.The ONLY way to properly evaluate #1 is to look at GAMES THE PLAYER PLAYED IN. All of this "I want to compare him to other backs equally so I must use all 16 games" is ridiculous. It is your attempt at letting the evaluation of #2 cloud your judgment of #1.

Wow, that's exactly what I was trying to say, but far more clearly and concisely than I ever could have said it. Thanks, and see you again in 2 years, I guess.

Yeah I had to say it. I am sitting at 9 in my 12 teamer, and its a keep 2 player league that is starting fresh (every third year). But the wrinkle is you can't keep two of a position. I am not sure if this is the reason, but top QB's and WR's are not sloughed for RB in this league. I fully expect Brady/Brees and Moss/Fitz to be gone before I pick. That means this discussion is very important to me...Thanks for the insight.

 

[millertyme1]

Besides, as I said, if you had Kevin Faulk (33rd best RB in PPG) backing up Steven Jackson, then the combo would still rank 6th in the NFL in points per game.

I totally agree with your PPG logic. Our fantasy season goes from Weeks 1-16. PPR scoring2008: Jackson (1-7;13-16) & Faulk (Wks 8-12) = ~259.42 FP =16.22008: R.Bush (1-7), Deangelo (8,9Bye,10-16), Hillis (9)= ~385.4 FP = 24.09Nice year to not spend a Round 1 or 2 pick on RB. Reggie in Round 3 & DeAngelo in Round 7. Combined with the constant in Forte (obtained in Round 6) made for a nice PPG tandem.

 

[Bayhawks]

All of this sounds good on paper, but if it were really having a pronounced effect in the real world, it would have shown in the study. Playing style is strongly correlated from year to year. So is workload. If a player is a punishing runner in year N, more than likely he's going to be a punishing runner in year N+1. If a player is a workhorse in year N, more than likely he's going to be a workhorse in year N+1. If running style or workload were really noticeably impacting a player's chance of injury, then we'd be seeing a greater difference in the data between "healthy" backs and "injury prone" backs in year N+1. After all, that bruiser would be more likely to find himself in the "injury prone" category in year N, and he'd be more likely to miss time again in year N+1. The fact that the "healthy" and "injury prone" backs are missing a comparable amount of time tells us that it's DIFFERENT BACKS who are missing time from year to year, not the same backs over and over again (which is what we'd expect if something like running style or workload was the primary cause of missed time).

How would it have shown up on the study? It didn't differentiate between "between-the-tackle" RBs and scatbacks, it didn't differentiate between RBs who got 300+ touches and RBs who had under 100 touches, and it didn't differentiate between "physical" RBs who seek out contact and "soft" RBs who avoid it by running out of bounds, going down easy, etc. Maybe a study that did those things would show that physical, contact-seeking, high workload RBs are more likely to get injured, while soft, COP backs who don't seen the ball more than 5 times a game are less likely to get injured. On the other hand, maybe it won't show any difference. I don't know, which is what I posted before, but you are wrong by saying that this study proves workload, type of running style, and a RB's build don't impact injury probability.BTW-you're being incredibly naive if you believe that a RB who gets 300 touches a year is JUST AS LIKELY to get injured as a RB who only gets 100 touches a year.

 

[SSOG]

How would it have shown up on the study? It didn't differentiate between "between-the-tackle" RBs and scatbacks, it didn't differentiate between RBs who got 300+ touches and RBs who had under 100 touches, and it didn't differentiate between "physical" RBs who seek out contact and "soft" RBs who avoid it by running out of bounds, going down easy, etc. Maybe a study that did those things would show that physical, contact-seeking, high workload RBs are more likely to get injured, while soft, COP backs who don't seen the ball more than 5 times a game are less likely to get injured. On the other hand, maybe it won't show any difference. I don't know, which is what I posted before, but you are wrong by saying that this study proves workload, type of running style, and a RB's build don't impact injury probability.BTW-you're being incredibly naive if you believe that a RB who gets 300 touches a year is JUST AS LIKELY to get injured as a RB who only gets 100 touches a year.

It doesn't have to differentiate between styles in order for some correlation to show up. Let's perform a thought experiment- imagine a world with only two types of RBs- "Bruisers" and "Dancers". All Dancers play all 16 games, and all Bruisers miss 8 games a season. In this imaginary world, there will be a HUGE difference between the expected games played in year N+1. The backs who played 8 games in year N will play... 8 games in N+1. The backs who played 16 in year N will play 16 in N+1. You aren't intentionally differentiating between backs based on whether they're "bruisers" or "dancers"... but looking at games played in year N is doing all the differentiating for you.Now, back to the real world. If certain RBs were significantly more prone to injuries based on playing style or workload, then those RBs would be overrepresented in the "Injured in Year N" group, and would again be overrepresented in the "injured in N+1" group, which would naturally cause a higher correlation between "injured in Year N" and "injured in Year N+1" (just like in our Bruisers and Dancers thought experiment). The fact that the correlation between the two is so weak suggests one of two things- either "injury prone" RBs (backs with high workloads and bruising styles) are only very marginally more likely to be injured than "healthy" RBs... or else such a small percentage of the NFL's RB population is actually injury prone that it doesn't make much difference when examining the entire population.I also never said that an RB with 300 touches is just as likely to get injured as an RB with 100 touches. I said that, if workload was the PRIMARY CAUSE OF INJURY, we'd be seeing a higher correlation between injuries in Year N and Year N+1. Something can be a cause of injury without being the primary cause of injury. Obviously workload increases the chance an RB gets injured, but my contention is that workload doesn't increase the injury risk anywhere near as much as you seem to be implying it does. For instance, let's take a gander at the top 32 RBs in the league in fantasy points per game last year. The following RBs missed time- Willis McGahee (12 carries a game), Dom Rhodes (10 carries a game), Addai (13 carries a game), Parker (19 carries a game), Sammy Morris (12 carries a game), Graham (13 carries a game), Larry Johnson (16 carries a game), Pierre Thomas (9 carries a game), Reggie Bush (10 carries a game), Marion Barber (16 carries a game), Marshawn Lynch (17 carries a game), Frank Gore (17 carries a game), Chris Johnson (17 carries a game), Brian Westbrook (17 carries a game), Brandon Jacobs (17 carries a game), and Steven Jackson (21 carries a game). Out of the 16 top RBs who got injured, only TWO were on pace for more than 280 carries. Of the 16 top RBs who didn't get injured, *SEVEN* received more than 280 carries. Last year, the high workload RBs were more likely to stay healthy and the low workload RBs were more likely to miss time. If workload really is such a strong factor in determining who gets injured, explain how that could possibly happen. Personally, I think that there's a massive lurking variable at play here, and that's the coach's decision of who to give the workload to. Coaches know their RBs, and they only give a high workload to a back who is physically capable of shouldering it, which would explain why it would seem that high workload RBs are *LESS* likely to get injured- because the implied correlation is backwards! It's not that high workload RBs are less likely to get injured, it's that RBs that are less likely to get injured get high workloads.Even ignoring all of this, at the end of the day, even if workload *WAS* the primary cause of injuries (and as I've illustrated, it is absolutely *not*), then so what? Would you shy away from every RB who was projected to get 300 carries? Would you target players who were only slated for 150 carries because they're less of an injury risk? At the end of the day, workload is a very good thing. Shying away from players because their high workload means they're more likely to get injured is essentially shying away from players projected to score the most fantasy points since they're most likely to get injured.

 

[Bayhawks]

It doesn't have to differentiate between styles in order for some correlation to show up. Let's perform a thought experiment- imagine a world with only two types of RBs- "Bruisers" and "Dancers". All Dancers play all 16 games, and all Bruisers miss 8 games a season. In this imaginary world, there will be a HUGE difference between the expected games played in year N+1. The backs who played 8 games in year N will play... 8 games in N+1. The backs who played 16 in year N will play 16 in N+1. You aren't intentionally differentiating between backs based on whether they're "bruisers" or "dancers"... but looking at games played in year N is doing all the differentiating for you.

Yes, it does. Right now, the study just has all RBs lumped together based on games played, and then reports on games played in year N+1. We don't know how many of the RBs who missed time in year N+1 were "Bruisers" or "Dancers." Perhaps all the RBs who missed time in year N+1 were "Bruisers" who had had 300 touches for 2 consecutive years. Maybe all the RBs who stayed healthy in year N+1 were "Dancers" who only touched the ball 100-150 times a year. We don't know that, because the study didn't look at that. Look, I'm not saying that there definitely IS a correlation. All I'm saying that while that study is informative, it doesn't necessarily mean that RBs who played 16 games are likely to play only 1.7 (or whatever the number was) more games than RBs who played in 8-12 games last year. I posted that I would love to see a study that compared running styles, body type, etc to injury probability.Furthermore, not every "Bruiser" is a big, tough, durable back, and not every "dancer" is a dainty little thing destined to be forever hurt. Different people have different pain thresholds, recuperative abilities, or are just plain more durable.SJax has not been durable the last two years, IMO, that makes him more of an injury concern than say, Clinton Portis, who has played all 16 games the last 2 years.

 

[SSOG]

Yes, it does. Right now, the study just has all RBs lumped together based on games played, and then reports on games played in year N+1. We don't know how many of the RBs who missed time in year N+1 were "Bruisers" or "Dancers." Perhaps all the RBs who missed time in year N+1 were "Bruisers" who had had 300 touches for 2 consecutive years. Maybe all the RBs who stayed healthy in year N+1 were "Dancers" who only touched the ball 100-150 times a year. We don't know that, because the study didn't look at that.

Like I said, the study didn't EXPLICITLY differentiate between backs possessing factors making injury more likely and backs not possessing those factors... but it IMPLICITLY differentiated by grouping the RBs that missed time and the RBs that didn't. It may not have been part of the methodology to look at things like size or workload, but that doesn't mean the study didn't look at that data.Besides, you completely ignored my data that showed that high workload RBs were significantly less likely to miss time than low workload RBs last season.

SJax has not been durable the last two years, IMO, that makes him more of an injury concern than say, Clinton Portis, who has played all 16 games the last 2 years.

According to the study, it doesn't make him significantly more injury prone than Portis. It's also very funny that you bring up Clinton Portis, an RB who has at several points during his career been considered an injury risk because of his size and the fact that he's missed a lot of time to injury. Clinton Portis has missed 8 games in the past 3 seasons. Steven Jackson has missed 8 games in the past 3 seasons. Portis missed time in 3 of his first 5 seasons, and played through nagging injuries in several other instances during that span. The fact that Portis has since played in 32 straight games really just demonstrates how silly it is to consider an RB an injury risk based solely on the fact that he has been injured in the past. Thanks for making my point for me.