My Article Here At FFToday

[NAn 39]

on the home page here.

 

Of special interest re: Edgerrin James, Tiki Barber, Shaun Alexander.

 

I'll reiteriate my disclaimer at this time:

It is not to say conclusively that you shouldn’t draft a RB coming off a 370-f/carry season, but consider the data and be aware of the odds when drafting one of these players. Watch and note a player’s team and individual situation, and adjust draft strategy or rankings/projections accordingly.

 

Looking forward to your comments.

 

Thanks to Mike for posting and Matt for editing.

[Mighty6 0]

For a long time I have avoided RBs that had a particularly heavy workload the previous season. The approach hasn't really failed me, so seeing it put to statistical analysis made me feel much better.

 

I think you did a great job with the research and analysis.

 

Thanks for the info!!

 

 

 

[mattb333 0]

Great Article. I would like to thank you for scrambling my brain just a bit more with my #1 pick

[duaneok66 0]

Great Article. I would like to thank you for scrambling my brain just a bit more with my #1 pick

 

 

great article . . .

[mgs316 14]

Man this is brutal. With this trend, 1/3 of the starting NFL RB's are unusable or will fail to meet expectations.

[stosher1 0]

Great article - just reinforces my rankings with SA behind LJ and LT AND Tiki behind Portis.

Of course this means that I will probably draw the #5 position and second guess having Tiki that high!

[cinciman7 2]

Great article - just reinforces my rankings with SA behind LJ and LT AND Tiki behind Portis.

Of course this means that I will probably draw the #5 position and second guess having Tiki that high!

I'm in this position every year it seems.

[Blaneyfan 0]

Excellent read and interesting analysis man! Thanks for sharing.

 

 

Cheers

[De Novo 0]

Very solid work. I've avoided backs in the past for this very reason. I've felt a big letdown for Alexander and Tiki this season, and this data lends a little more credence to that theory. I think they're both #1 RBs, but not in the top-4 consensus and way off the leader's pace.

[The Moz 69]

I curse all who doubt S. Alexander -- shame on you ! !

 

[football_scooter 0]

A nice article - solid data and makes for a good read.

 

At the end though I found myself thinking that the gist was, "if you draft a good RB in the 1st round, be sure to grab his handcuff"

 

Wow - revolutionary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

solid article though, sarcasm aside.

[stosher1 0]

I curse all who doubt S. Alexander -- shame on you ! !

 

 

I'm not doubting him - he's still #3 on my list.

[SmartassBoiler 0]

Nice work. I've tried my best not to overanalyze FF this year, but this is actually something I always consider as a tie breaker. As others have said, it's one of several reasons I have SA running 3rd behind LJ and LT.

[NAn 39]

A nice article - solid data and makes for a good read.

 

At the end though I found myself thinking that the gist was, "if you draft a good RB in the 1st round, be sure to grab his handcuff"

 

Wow - revolutionary.

solid article though, sarcasm aside.

 

LOL

 

Thanks for all the comments guys.

 

Yeah Scoot, I know even with this data, it's hard for folks to pass on guys that are essentially in many ffers top6.

 

So, if nothing else, just want to remind those folks just be sure to get the RBs in articles b/ups.

[junk 0]

the 370 threshold seems a key to this analysis..

i wonder what the #s look like at 300,325, 350, etc.

[Freak Jones 0]

Great article. Great analysis. Obviously there will always be exceptions, but they are probably few and far between.

 

I hadn't read any of the previous articles on the same topic, so if this has been covered, I apologize. Reading the article made me wonder if LT had had one of those excessive use seasons. In looking at his 2002 season, he did. He had 372 carries and 79 receptions. But man, it would have hurt to not picked him for 2003.

 

1645 rushing

725 receiving

17 total TDs

 

You know these guys can't keep it up forever, but when you see that the exception is someone that we put Shaun in the same class as, it makes you hesitant to devalue them too much. On the other hand those were LT's second and third seasons in the league, so wear and tear is more of an issue with Shaun this year.

 

Just my thoughts. I love trend analysis. Thanks for putting the time in on that man!

[steelers2101 7]

First off, thanks for doing the work, but no offense, I see a huge logical flaw in the article (but maybe I missed what I was looking for).

 

1. Those with 370+ f/carries is such a small sample size that an analysis isn't that reliable. Then again, what is 100% reliable in fantasy, nothing, so I guess that's not such a big deal.

 

2. My big problem with this is that 370+ f/carries is almost the ceiling for RBs. So saying that their numbers will decrease is like saying that an RB who had 10 carries the year before will have a big increase this year. So I really don't think that is saying much. But maybe that's the whole point.

 

This says it all:

 

"# 7 of 42 (16.7%) RBs had an increase in f/carries (In fact, the increase was a significant gain of +17.2 f/carries)

# 35 of 42 (83.3%) RBs had a decrease in f/carries"

 

Considering only 42 RBs in 10 years have reached that total, my only conclusion can be "no sh!t."

 

However, you clearly understood this in saying "It’s rare to have a 370-f/carry season and even more rare for a RB to repeat the feat. Most of the time there is nowhere for an RB to go but down after a 370-f/carry season."

 

3. Such a study is more accurate when comparing the trends for players with 370+ f/carries, to those with, for example, 350-370 f/carries, 330-350 f/carries, and 300-330 f/carries. If those with 330-350 f/carries dropped off more, it tells us that those that had 370+ f/carries got that many carries for a reason, and that they are more likely to do as well as they did before. Also, more important than how many carries they get the next year, is how efficient they are with those carries the following year. It's obvious that most of those who get to the high mark of 370+ f/carries will have fewer f/carries the next year, but what would be more telling is whether they got more fantasy points relative to how many f/carries they had the following year.

 

4. "# Only 5.4% of the time in recent history has there been a heavy workload season. (42 RB seasons out of 771).

# Only 16.7% of those 42 seasons has a RB met or exceeded his f/carries after reaching that magical number of 370 f/carries."

 

What does that tell me? That tells me that those who reached the 370+ mark the year before have an 12.2% greater chance of reaching that mark again than those who didn't reach that mark the year before (not 11.3% because 16.7% of that 5.4% were those that repeated).

 

But thanks again for doing the work, because nevertheless, it's something to think about.

[t.j 35]

Great Article. I would like to thank you for scrambling my brain just a bit more with my #1 pick

 

L to the T!

[football is life 0]

Here's another one to freak you out so more:

 

http://www.footballdocs.com/RB_carries_2005.html

 

Looks like no 2006 update, but scary to see the Curtis Martin prediction come true. No guarantees, but weighing the odds like they say, there may be something to it.

[NAn 39]

JUNK

read on, I give 'somewhat' of an answer to your question (best I can do at this pt, but think it does address your question)

 

FREAK JONES

Here are LTs stats:

 

| 2001 sdg | 16 | 339 1236 3.6 10 | 59 367 6.2 0 |

| 2002 sdg | 16 | 372 1683 4.5 14 | 79 489 6.2 1 |

| 2003 sdg | 16 | 313 1645 5.3 13 | 100 725 7.2 4 |

| 2004 sdg | 15 | 339 1335 3.9 17 | 53 441 8.3 1 |

| 2005 sdg | 16 | 339 1462 4.3 18 | 51 370 7.3 2 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

 

So LT did not meet 370 criteria last year.

 

In fact, despite his touches, he's done it only once. He was of those who had a 370 season and then increased production the next year ('02 -'03)..key is that of the 7 times that happened 3 of them happened in a player's first year or two.

 

So good percentage who do it, do it early in their career.

 

Further, RBs used in similiar ways to LT, namely Marshall Faulk & Priest Holmes never attained 370 seasons…their f/carry highs: Holmes 358 ('01), Faulk 367 ('98), which probably added to their longevity as top ff producers, which I would suggest is why LT continues to do the same.

 

STEELERS2101

Honestly appreciate the comments man. Actually surprised took this long for a discerning critique on the data and to be expected.

 

As I say in the article: I tried several different numbers for this formula and settled on 370 f/carries as the benchmark.

 

I don't have hard numbers right now, but what I can tell (this is for you too Junk) is that the success rate at 320-360 f/carries was considerably higher, almost flip flopped to 70+% that met or exceeded the following year (with higher f/carries of 380-400 considerably smaller sample and considerably worse success rate).

 

Think about it...that's anywhere from 300carries/40recs to 330carries/60recs...ideal for top ff RBs.

 

Why I settled on 370 is b/c that's where drop was abrupt and signficant in production.

 

What I'll note is that in most of the cases in the sample, the players were building to the 370 benchmark. Gradually going, over a few years, from 320...successful, 340...successful, 360...successful, 370+...considerable drop.

 

So I settled on that number, so I could denote to ffers that potential drop.

 

You hit on the 'no duh' aspect of the piece...'only 42 in 10 years...no %$@*!'

 

And I concede that in the piece: 'It’s rare to have a 370-f/carry season and even more rare for a RB to repeat the feat. Most of the time there is nowhere for an RB to go but down after a 370-f/carry season. It’s not that these RBs always come back with bad years—but they too often fail to live up to expectation. You should consider that statistical history says it’s highly unlikely for RBs coming off 370 seasons to attain a similar number of f/carries.'

 

And you're absolutely right, after such a big load it's common sense that a player will drop off in production.

 

But we're talking ff and ffers here...we don't always deal in common sense.

 

We often see what we want to see.

 

So, it should be common sense, but think of the guys just from last year, noted in data: Edge, Tiki, Alexander.

 

You see any projections where people are projecting considerably less carries/recs?

 

More often than not...NO.

 

Because we FFers assume, 'hey he had 350 carries, 60 recs...yeah, I expect the same this year.'

 

B/c if we project less...that means we expect less and we're all about more, more, more with our projections, especially with the top guys.

 

Anyway, that's my response for what it's worth...again appreciate the honest comments.

[Let Da Big Dog Eat 37]

From your response, it is obvious that you put in even more thought a research for this article than was evidenced in the article. Very nice work and TY.

[Wildman 0]

JUNK

read on, I give 'somewhat' of an answer to your question (best I can do at this pt, but think it does address your question)

 

FREAK JONES

Here are LTs stats:

 

| 2001 sdg | 16 | 339 1236 3.6 10 | 59 367 6.2 0 |

| 2002 sdg | 16 | 372 1683 4.5 14 | 79 489 6.2 1 |

| 2003 sdg | 16 | 313 1645 5.3 13 | 100 725 7.2 4 |

| 2004 sdg | 15 | 339 1335 3.9 17 | 53 441 8.3 1 |

| 2005 sdg | 16 | 339 1462 4.3 18 | 51 370 7.3 2 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

 

So LT did not meet 370 criteria last year.

 

In fact, despite his touches, he's done it only once. He was of those who had a 370 season and then increased production the next year ('02 -'03)..key is that of the 7 times that happened 3 of them happened in a player's first year or two.

 

So good percentage who do it, do it early in their career.

 

Further, RBs used in similiar ways to LT, namely Marshall Faulk & Priest Holmes never attained 370 seasons…their f/carry highs: Holmes 358 ('01), Faulk 367 ('98), which probably added to their longevity as top ff producers, which I would suggest is why LT continues to do the same.

 

STEELERS2101

Honestly appreciate the comments man. Actually surprised took this long for a discerning critique on the data and to be expected.

 

As I say in the article: I tried several different numbers for this formula and settled on 370 f/carries as the benchmark.

 

I don't have hard numbers right now, but what I can tell (this is for you too Junk) is that the success rate at 320-360 f/carries was considerably higher, almost flip flopped to 70+% that met or exceeded the following year (with higher f/carries of 380-400 considerably smaller sample and considerably worse success rate).

 

Think about it...that's anywhere from 300carries/40recs to 330carries/60recs...ideal for top ff RBs.

 

Why I settled on 370 is b/c that's where drop was abrupt and signficant in production.

 

What I'll note is that in most of the cases in the sample, the players were building to the 370 benchmark. Gradually going, over a few years, from 320...successful, 340...successful, 360...successful, 370+...considerable drop.

 

So I settled on that number, so I could denote to ffers that potential drop.

 

You hit on the 'no duh' aspect of the piece...'only 42 in 10 years...no %$@*!'

 

And I concede that in the piece: 'It’s rare to have a 370-f/carry season and even more rare for a RB to repeat the feat. Most of the time there is nowhere for an RB to go but down after a 370-f/carry season. It’s not that these RBs always come back with bad years—but they too often fail to live up to expectation. You should consider that statistical history says it’s highly unlikely for RBs coming off 370 seasons to attain a similar number of f/carries.'

 

And you're absolutely right, after such a big load it's common sense that a player will drop off in production.

 

But we're talking ff and ffers here...we don't always deal in common sense.

 

We often see what we want to see.

 

So, it should be common sense, but think of the guys just from last year, noted in data: Edge, Tiki, Alexander.

 

You see any projections where people are projecting considerably less carries/recs?

 

More often than not...NO.

 

Because we FFers assume, 'hey he had 350 carries, 60 recs...yeah, I expect the same this year.'

 

B/c if we project less...that means we expect less and we're all about more, more, more with our projections, especially with the top guys.

 

Anyway, that's my response for what it's worth...again appreciate the honest comments.

 

I think this is a good idea for a follow up article Nan...any chance you can study a lower benchmark to see who fits these profiles? I'd be interested in seeing that for sure...

[NAn 39]

I think this is a good idea for a follow up article Nan...any chance you can study a lower benchmark to see who fits these profiles? I'd be interested in seeing that for sure...

 

Read my mind Wildman.

 

Going to look into this yes, as a possible follow up.

 

I do have alot of the data available, just a matter of time (did I mention I have a 3 day old baby?).

 

Something definitely plan to get to as I have time though.

[waxg 3]

So what is the solution? You are sittin there with an early pick. Are you passing on these guys and reaching for Caddy or Ronnie? I think not.

[NAn 39]

So what is the solution? You are sittin there with an early pick. Are you passing on these guys and reaching for Caddy or Ronnie? I think not.

 

LOL, I was expecting some of this.

 

Did you read the article?

 

Or even my disclaimer in the first post?

 

I say, several times:

It is not to say conclusively that you shouldn’t draft a RB coming off a 370-f/carry season, but consider the data and be aware of the odds when drafting one of these players. Watch and note a player’s team and individual situation, and adjust draft strategy or rankings/projections accordingly.

[MahSoonerz 0]

Congrats on the new arrival! May your family share many many long happy years together!

 

I keep looking at other FF sites and nothing even comes close to the quality of material at FFToday. Thanks for adding to the legend, not to mention the excellent analysis.

 

And I still don't think anybody else in my league reads the main site or this bored.

[Sweetness_34 0]

Very nice article NaN. I always appreciate data driven insight, so thank you.

 

==========

 

Now for some comments of my own:

 

- Yes, be prepared that when you pick a 370 f+ carry RB, he will not repeat it. However, the question is how do you project who gets the next 370 f+ carries?????. Did you see Shaun getting 370+ last year before the draft? Will Portis do it this year???

 

My theory behind why Shaun got the 370+ last year is simple - Seattle played some lousy opponents (see NFC West), and hence ran the ball a lot after getting the lead. Also, the # of man-WR games lost was quite a bit (eg - Redskins game they were without both of their top WRs). Now, Sea will continue to have the easy opponents this year and despite adding Burleson, if DJax stays out or reinjures himself, watch out for the SA show again.

 

- LT has had more injury issues than Shaun. Also, LT is just 1 year younger than SHaun. ALso, guess what: LT and SHaun have had almost the same # of carries (and I only counting rushing, if you add receptions, in one less year, LT has been hit more times than Shaun has by defenses.....go look at their career #s if you do not believe it). So, if your league is NOT A PPR league, why would you draft LT over Shaun???? ANd do not throw this stupid Madden or superbowl hangover or "Shaun has his money so he is not motivated" crap at me......(This is not directed at Nan, this is for all of the others, many of who prefer LT over Shaun).....if you look at Shaun;s schedule, in the FF playoffs, he gets AZ, SF in the weeks 14 and 15.....also, Shaun plays the NFC NOrth besides the NFC West twice. SO why would you not draft SHaun over LT if there is no PPR in your league????

[p00h 85]

Well written article, but I'm not sold on the theory. You have taken a small subset of RBs that fit your criteria. How about RBs that have been workhorses for years and years and years. You can take a small subset of anything to prove any point. I'm not saying there is some truth to what you're saying here, but there are plenty of backs that buck that trend. Football is such a violently dynamic sport, this type of analysis is fairly trivial. A back can get something like turftoe and essentially get his workload cut to 1/2, with the injury nagging all year long. Or he can break his leg and be out for 8 weeks. Or he can lose 2 all world linemen and get 60% of his stats from the previous year, with not a single injury in sight. Just have to go with the best talent, the rest is a crap shoot...