NAn 39 Posted January 6, 2007 Prior to this season I wrote an article re: the statistical history of RBs with seasons of ’heavy workloads’ and how those RBs performed after those ‘heavy workload’ seasons. Can refer to article here: http://www.fftoday.com/articles/special/06_rb_heavy.htm Also posted a 'look back' thread after week7 (more than halfway point of most FF regular seasons). Can read commentary from that thread here: http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...mp;hl=look+back The article cited: *83.3% chance that those RBs would decrease in touches (f/carries as defined in article) *71.5% chance that those RBs would decrease in ff production (just 12.3% worthy of 1st round pick) *76.9 % chance that those RBs would miss game/s due to injury Specifically, the article cited the following RBs: Shaun Alexander Tiki Barber Edgerrin James Now, with the NFL and FF seasons over, a look back. Increase or decrease in f/carries? Shaun Alexander ‘05 - 378 f/carries (16 games) ‘06 – 258 f/carries (10 games) Tiki Barber ‘05 - 384 f/carries (16 games) ‘06 – 358 f/carries (16 games) Edgerrin James ‘05 - 382 f/carries (15 games) ‘06 - 356 f/carries (16 games) * In all cases there is in fact a decrease in f/carries * Alexander the most significant decrease in f/carries due to playing 6 less games * Barber decrease in f/carries while playing same number of games * James decrease in f/carries while playing 1 more game Increase or decrease in ff production? Shaun Alexander ‘05 - 353 ff pts, 22.1 ffppg ‘06 - 124 ff pts, 12.4 ffppg Tiki Barber ‘05 - 295 ff pts, 18.4 ffppg ‘06 - 230 ff pts, 14.4 ffppg Edgerrin James ‘05 - 253 ff pts, 16.9 ffppg ‘06 - 155 ff pts, 9.7 ffppg * All 3 RBs had decrease in total ff pts per game * All 3 RBs had decrease in avg ffppg * Only Barber warranted a 1st round pick for ’06 ff season Other RBs Also noted were following RBs who attained heavy workload benchmark other than last year that many projected for ‘bounce back’ years. Cited in article that 73.8% chance that these RBs would not even attain 200 ff pts: Ahman Green Deuce Mcallister Jamal Lewis Curtis Martin Ahman Green (14 games) ‘06 - 162 ff pts, 11.6 ffppg Deuce Mcallister (15 games) ‘06 - 177 ff pts, 11.8 ffppg Jamal Lewis (16 games) ‘06 - 163 ff pts, 10.2 ffppg Curtis Martin (0 games) ‘06 - 0 ff pts, 0.0 ffppg * 4 of 4 RBs (100%) did not attain 200 ff pts * 4 of 4 RBs (100%) did finish top20 amongst RBs * 3 of 4 RBs (75%) did miss time due to injury Missed Games Shaun Alexander: 6 missed games Ahman Green: 2 missed games Deuce Mcallister: 1 missed game Curtis Martin: 16 missed games * 4 of 7 RBs missed game due to injury (57.2%) * Martin missed entire season due to injury * Of those who have not missed time, several are carrying the ball significantly less than in years past (part of significance of data): Mcallister/Lewis in RBBC situations, Tiki less touches in RZ. General Comments I don't do this to 'pat myself on back', but to honestly look to see if the analysis holds up. Those who know me from the board I think would agree it's about honestly looking if any data/research/etc. holds up. Re: that original analysis and analysis since: It was not some arbitrary number of '370' I picked out of a hat. I looked at various numbers to benchmark as a 'heavy workload' and settled on 370 b/c that was the pt when the data really started to say something. Looking at numbers for 350-369 f/carries, the data showed that, more or less, a RB was just as likely to do well as fall off (about 58% would be 'FF productive' if memory serves, not a strong number either way). Again, cited were LT/Rudi who fell in that 350-369 range...Portis was also in that range. He looks like he is on way to very productive season, but he did miss time. Pt being, data seems to be saying that if you do get a RB with 350-369 f/carries (in some cases less), that he could go either way. LT in fact dodged bullet of '370' most of his years and so has continued to be successful year after year. Holmes also never attained 370 during his run as FF stud, but was in 350-369 a few years (even in the 340s a few years). Marshall Faulk also never attained 370, actually in the 320-340 range, during his run. Again, possible conclusion could be drawn that they were successful for so long b/c they didn't attain 370 benchmark. Other RBs who attained 370, fell off quickly, usually the year after attaining that number: Jamal Lewis, Ahman Green, Ricky Williams, Terrell Davis, Eddie George Valid pts were made: 'Not much of a stretch to see Alexander's numbers coming down', 'Edge was going to Cards, don't need to know much to know he would drop off', etc. Absolutely right. But we FFers are funny. B/c despite all that, most FFers still had those guys ranked top1-8, definite 1st rnders....so despite the 'common sense' of 'of course their production will drop' with those players, many still ranked them high. By no means am I saying the data is infallible...Tiki didn't get as many TDs (nice finish with 3 in wk17 though( and though short of last year, still had 2100 total yds. This data is just a tool...in the article I say as much, conceding that I'm not saying outright 'don't draft these guys', just take the information into consideration when drafting/ranking, consider each player's individual situation and adjust accordingly. Case in pt, in one of my leagues I had the 3 spot, Alexander fell to me there. I had few trade offers for the pick I felt were worthwhile and also couldn't see taking anyone else at that spot...value just wasn't there with anybody else. So I took Alexander at draft and traded him for solid value during season prior to him missing time (also taking into acct that he had not looked great prior to injury anyway) A few have pointed out that they didn't overhaul their entire draft b/c of the article, but 'adjusted' a bit. Also that Edge going to Cards is a factor more than his prior workload...solid case of considering the individual situation of the player. Case could also be made for Tiki, where one could consider that Jacobs ran well last year when given chance and during preseason. That Jacobs was a 'bigger' RB. One could have considered that and thought: 'Tiki could still got alot of yds, but they may use Jacobs at GL, so Tiki may not get as many TDs'. Again, just a tool...beyond that, take the information, or not, as you see fit. Looking forward to your comments. Next year will be an interesting look at the data moving forward. RBs who attained 370 f/carry benchmark during 06 season and be part of analysis next season...for many the consensus 1, 2, 3 RBs/top picks for next year's drafts: Ladanian Tomlinson Larry Johnson Stephen Jackson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remote controller 143 Posted January 6, 2007 Prior to this season I wrote an article re: the statistical history of RBs with seasons of ’heavy workloads’ and how those RBs performed after those ‘heavy workload’ seasons. Can refer to article here: http://www.fftoday.com/articles/special/06_rb_heavy.htm Also posted a 'look back' thread after week7 (more than halfway point of most FF regular seasons). Can read commentary from that thread here: http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...mp;hl=look+back The article cited: *83.3% chance that those RBs would decrease in touches (f/carries as defined in article) *71.5% chance that those RBs would decrease in ff production (just 12.3% worthy of 1st round pick) *76.9 % chance that those RBs would miss game/s due to injury Specifically, the article cited the following RBs: Shaun Alexander Tiki Barber Edgerrin James Now, with the NFL and FF seasons over, a look back. Increase or decrease in f/carries? Shaun Alexander ‘05 - 378 f/carries (16 games) ‘06 – 258 f/carries (10 games) Tiki Barber ‘05 - 384 f/carries (16 games) ‘06 – 358 f/carries (16 games) Edgerrin James ‘05 - 382 f/carries (15 games) ‘06 - 356 f/carries (16 games) * In all cases there is in fact a decrease in f/carries * Alexander the most significant decrease in f/carries due to playing 6 less games * Barber decrease in f/carries while playing same number of games * James decrease in f/carries while playing 1 more game Increase or decrease in ff production? Shaun Alexander ‘05 - 353 ff pts, 22.1 ffppg ‘06 - 124 ff pts, 12.4 ffppg Tiki Barber ‘05 - 295 ff pts, 18.4 ffppg ‘06 - 230 ff pts, 14.4 ffppg Edgerrin James ‘05 - 253 ff pts, 16.9 ffppg ‘06 - 155 ff pts, 9.7 ffppg * All 3 RBs had decrease in total ff pts per game * All 3 RBs had decrease in avg ffppg * Only Barber warranted a 1st round pick for ’06 ff season Other RBs Also noted were following RBs who attained heavy workload benchmark other than last year that many projected for ‘bounce back’ years. Cited in article that 73.8% chance that these RBs would not even attain 200 ff pts: Ahman Green Deuce Mcallister Jamal Lewis Curtis Martin Ahman Green (14 games) ‘06 - 162 ff pts, 11.6 ffppg Deuce Mcallister (15 games) ‘06 - 177 ff pts, 11.8 ffppg Jamal Lewis (16 games) ‘06 - 163 ff pts, 10.2 ffppg Curtis Martin (0 games) ‘06 - 0 ff pts, 0.0 ffppg * 4 of 4 RBs (100%) did not attain 200 ff pts * 4 of 4 RBs (100%) did finish top20 amongst RBs * 3 of 4 RBs (75%) did miss time due to injury Missed Games Shaun Alexander: 6 missed games Ahman Green: 2 missed games Deuce Mcallister: 1 missed game Curtis Martin: 16 missed games * 4 of 7 RBs missed game due to injury (57.2%) * Martin missed entire season due to injury * Of those who have not missed time, several are carrying the ball significantly less than in years past (part of significance of data): Mcallister/Lewis in RBBC situations, Tiki less touches in RZ. General Comments I don't do this to 'pat myself on back', but to honestly look to see if the analysis holds up. Those who know me from the board I think would agree it's about honestly looking if any data/research/etc. holds up. Re: that original analysis and analysis since: It was not some arbitrary number of '370' I picked out of a hat. I looked at various numbers to benchmark as a 'heavy workload' and settled on 370 b/c that was the pt when the data really started to say something. Looking at numbers for 350-369 f/carries, the data showed that, more or less, a RB was just as likely to do well as fall off (about 58% would be 'FF productive' if memory serves, not a strong number either way). Again, cited were LT/Rudi who fell in that 350-369 range...Portis was also in that range. He looks like he is on way to very productive season, but he did miss time. Pt being, data seems to be saying that if you do get a RB with 350-369 f/carries (in some cases less), that he could go either way. LT in fact dodged bullet of '370' most of his years and so has continued to be successful year after year. Holmes also never attained 370 during his run as FF stud, but was in 350-369 a few years (even in the 340s a few years). Marshall Faulk also never attained 370, actually in the 320-340 range, during his run. Again, possible conclusion could be drawn that they were successful for so long b/c they didn't attain 370 benchmark. Other RBs who attained 370, fell off quickly, usually the year after attaining that number: Jamal Lewis, Ahman Green, Ricky Williams, Terrell Davis, Eddie George Valid pts were made: 'Not much of a stretch to see Alexander's numbers coming down', 'Edge was going to Cards, don't need to know much to know he would drop off', etc. Absolutely right. But we FFers are funny. B/c despite all that, most FFers still had those guys ranked top1-8, definite 1st rnders....so despite the 'common sense' of 'of course their production will drop' with those players, many still ranked them high. By no means am I saying the data is infallible...Tiki didn't get as many TDs (nice finish with 3 in wk17 though( and though short of last year, still had 2100 total yds. This data is just a tool...in the article I say as much, conceding that I'm not saying outright 'don't draft these guys', just take the information into consideration when drafting/ranking, consider each player's individual situation and adjust accordingly. Case in pt, in one of my leagues I had the 3 spot, Alexander fell to me there. I had few trade offers for the pick I felt were worthwhile and also couldn't see taking anyone else at that spot...value just wasn't there with anybody else. So I took Alexander at draft and traded him for solid value during season prior to him missing time (also taking into acct that he had not looked great prior to injury anyway) A few have pointed out that they didn't overhaul their entire draft b/c of the article, but 'adjusted' a bit. Also that Edge going to Cards is a factor more than his prior workload...solid case of considering the individual situation of the player. Case could also be made for Tiki, where one could consider that Jacobs ran well last year when given chance and during preseason. That Jacobs was a 'bigger' RB. One could have considered that and thought: 'Tiki could still got alot of yds, but they may use Jacobs at GL, so Tiki may not get as many TDs'. Again, just a tool...beyond that, take the information, or not, as you see fit. Looking forward to your comments. Next year will be an interesting look at the data moving forward. RBs who attained 370 f/carry benchmark during 06 season and be part of analysis next season...for many the consensus 1, 2, 3 RBs/top picks for next year's drafts: Ladanian Tomlinson Larry Johnson Stephen Jackson .....and Rudi. He had many punishing carries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tusekan Raiders 0 Posted January 6, 2007 I previously did some research on this and had a post back in 2004 where the magic number was 400 carries (or just shy). I looked at the top 10 single-season carries (since a run is often harder on the body than a catch, I didn't factor in receptions) and it was amazing the impact. Basically everyone but Eric D!ckerson one of the three times he appear on the top 10 list was hurt or their performance suffered significantly the next year. The build up was that Ricky Williams was next, as he had just had the highest two-year total of carries in NFL history. Well, Ricky went and got himself suspended in 2005, so he did end up being a bad fantasy pick, but we'll never know how he would of ran. Now we have LT2 who just tied Walter Payton as the only two to have six straight 300+ carry seasons. We'll never know what Payton would have done in a full season that seventh season b/c it was cut almost in half by a strike. LT2, like Payton, has only come close, and not that close, to 400 carries once (372 for LT2, 369 for Payton) to start their careers. He has not been w/in 50 carries of 400 any other season. On the otherhand, Emmitt Smith was frequently over 350 carries early in his career, four out of six seasons in his second through seventh seasons in the league. During those six years, Emmitt was under 300 once, so he didn't make it six straight, but Smith, and not Payton or LT2, has the highest six season total - 2,093 carries (43 more than LT2). Smith's career performance tails off noticably after that point, which I comment on in the post below. Only twice in his career would he run for more than the 1,204 he did the last of those string of six seasons, whereas Payton had the second highest yardage total of his career in his tenth season and fourth highest yardage total in his eleventh. LT2 seems to be following a career path more similar to Payton's, so it seems possible to expect him not to be burned out as much in the first half of his career as Smith was, so as to still be capable of putting up huge season as he enters the second half of his career. The guy I'd be more concerned about is Larry Johnson. He just had the most carries ever by a RB in a single season. History is incredibly strong against him next season. Here is that post... Rushing attempts are typically a bit harder on the body - usually getting hit by more than one guy and, unlikely DBs, their usually bigger and stronger than the runner. So let's just look at those. Somebody mentioned Priest Holmes, for example. While he gets a lot of touches, his rushing attempts aren't that high. He's never carried more than 327 in a season. That's only like 13-14 games for some of the guys we're going to look at. Getting near or over 400 rushing attempts has been largely a death knell on many runners careers. LT2 "only" had 313 last year, after 372 the previous year. Here's the guys with most rushing attempts (not total touches) in a season since 1970: Jamal Anderson 1998 410-1846 1999 19-99 INJURED Had one more 1K season (2000) before blowing other knee and ending career. James Wilder 1984 407-1544 1985 365-1300 Never had 200 carries or 1K again after 1985. Eddie George 2000 403-1509 2001 315-939 INJURED Did have 343-1165 in 2002, but his production (ypc) has suffered and he hasn't been the same RB since 2000. Another off-season surgery this year. Gerald Riggs 1985 397-1719 1986 343-1327 Never had another 1K or completely healthy season again after 1986. Terrell Davis 1998 392-2008 1999 67-211 INJURED I think everyone knows his deal since 1998. Barry Foster 1992 390-1690 1993 177-711 INJURED Put up 216-851 in 1994 and then was out of football at age 27. Edgerrin James 2000 387-1709 2001 151-662 INJURED Continues to battle injuries, although he bounced back last year, still only had 309 carries. ED - the exception There's really only one guy who's an anomoly. Eric D!ckerson. He not only has 1 of the top 10 carries per season since 1970, he has 3. However, when he did achieve it twice later in his career, he did experience a significant drop the next year: 1988 388-1659 1989 314-1311 1986 404-1821 1987 283-1288 1983 388-1808 1984 379-2105 Emmitt Smith Someone brought up Emmitt Smith. He has a much more strenuous workload early in his career, but even then, his top season was 377 in 1995. Although he went on to obviously have continued success, even his production dropped dramatically after that year. From a 1,400+ yard ~4.5 ypc guy, to never getting over 350 touches again, never rushing for 1,400 yards again, and never posting higher than 4.2 ypc again. The guy who's really in trouble The guy I think you need to worry about more than LT2 is Ricky Williams. Last year he broke into the top 10 most attempts since 1970, and the dangerous ~400 plateau, with 392. And his production was significantly lower last year, despite those carries, coming on the heels of a 383 carry year in 2002. That's 775 carries in 2 years. That more than anyone else listed here in 2 consecutive years. That may be a record, I'm not sure. Obviously this doesn't mean these guys are definitely headed for injury, but at least Ricky is definitely heading into some historically dangerous territory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walter34 3 Posted January 6, 2007 Another point in LT's favour is that he rarely seems to get hit straight on or hard. He is incredibly elusive. This helps to preserve him for the long ter,. LJ seems the opposite where he is a bull that will try and carry defenders for extra yards and *seems* to take more of a beating. I expect a decent dropoff for LJ next season down to 1200 rush yds and 11 Tds unless he does suffer an injury. I've looked at these numbers and trends for years as well, but not to the level that Nan and TR did - great work gents! I would still draft LT #1 next year, but would not want the #2 spot unless it was to select Stephen jackson. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NAn 39 Posted January 8, 2007 that is good stuff TR....even more telling information. monday bump. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sharkie22 0 Posted January 8, 2007 I think this article was very well researched and have enjoyed reading it several times throughout the season. There's one point that could be added which might add more clarity to the "why" aspect as to the players decline following particularly heavy work loads. Average length of career. Most backs reach their peak season between the fourth and sixth seasons they're in the league. There are exceptions but the majority fall into this range. Two thirds of NFL running backs do not make it to their eighth season and the number grows to four out of five not making it to a ninth year and so on. In most cases the 370+ carries season is the players peak season as far as statistical performance is concerned. If a player is lucky in the vast majority of cases to make it through nine seasons and they peak around their fifth season in the league (give or take) it really should come as no surprise that there will be a significant and continued reduction in their production following the season in question. It's not even a matter of reaching the 370 carry plateau either. This holds true, on average, for RB's in general. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fumbleweed 547 Posted January 8, 2007 Excellent job, NAn, as always.......looking forward to your next project. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IN$TANT REPAY 11 Posted January 8, 2007 great post all around....this is how this place used to be and still is at times. stragery, and inside the numbers analysis.... ahh, the good ole days..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
football_scooter 0 Posted January 8, 2007 Excellent job, NAn, as always.......looking forward to your next project. kissass. lol - kidding. Actually I thought the article was excellent and interesting - there was a lot of good discussion in that topic that followed. I was thinking about Tomlinson and the enormous load he carried this year - plus now he's got the postseason and a potential SB hangover if the Chargers go all the way (and I think they have a real chance at it) I'd still take LT2 with a #1 overall pick next year, but I'd do so knowing that it could backfire. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moose 0 Posted January 8, 2007 great post all around....this is how this place used to be and still is at times. stragery, and inside the numbers analysis.... ahh, the good ole days..... Obviously the advent of spelling came after those "good ole days." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IN$TANT REPAY 11 Posted January 8, 2007 Obviously the advent of spelling came after those "good ole days." bored rooned your (not you're) furry foream griffiTH patteRn it's a geek thing.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
football_scooter 0 Posted January 8, 2007 bored rooned your (not you're) griffiTH patteRn its a geek thing.... to quote Samuel L Jackson, negro please. I've never heard anyone say "stragery" on any forearm here. And odd coincedence that the r is right next to the t. Seems ripe for a typo. I can't believe instead of typing "my bad", you tried to play the "geek card". Racist! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IN$TANT REPAY 11 Posted January 8, 2007 forearm forgot about that one too... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gobuckeyes 0 Posted January 8, 2007 The article seems prophetic, but the analysis is incomplete and sketchy. The conection between extra touches, and presumably hits taken seems pretty obvious, but what exactly is special about 370 fantasy touches? It would be much more convincing if he could have tied increasing fantasy touches to increasing risk of injury the next season. Plus, only SA's decreased production can be directly tied to wear and tear. James is arguable (clearly there are other reasons for his dropoff), but Tiki's only downfall was Brandon Jacobs. Otherwise he would have had a nearly equal fantasy season. As for Lewis/Green/Duece (Martin should clearly be discounted) none reached 200 fantasy points, but all were in the top 16 RBs in my league, having reasonably productive seasons as #2 RBs, and it didn't take any special statistical analysis to predict they would all be no better than #2 RBs this season. The fact that all three were productive really seems far more surprising than the fact that they didn't score more than 200 points (only 9 RBs did in my league and if anyone had drafted Lewis/Green/Duece in the first they wouldn't be asked back next year). All in all I'd say the article was good, but it mostly stated the obvious point that running backs eventually wear down. If someone could take the extra step of tying touches to injury risk without some arbitrary cut off point, and include factors such as age and total career workload, I'd actually be impressed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 1,025 Posted January 8, 2007 lj is still gonna run all over that ass next year nan! $100 says we sweep the raiders once again next year. Will that be like 5 years in a row? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RamslovaMartzhata 3 Posted January 8, 2007 While I do appreciate your efforts Nan... I think that the heavy workload in all cases had absolutely nothing to do with the players decrease. Tiki's TD's just decreased, but he still had rock solid production. Edge - He went from Indy to Arizona. SA is your best example... but my thoughts are that his injury may or may not be from the heavy workload... but a broken foot is sort of a fluky injury, and I would attribute this to old age more than anything. SA is a smart back who knows how to take care of himself and avoid a lot of hits... and it's not like his workload was THAT much heavier than the past couple of seasons. For me it WAS much easier for me to just say: These backs are getting old. Edge is going to a team with no OLine.... stay away. Tiki figures to get vultured... hopefully Jacobs will get injured or he'll have some long TD's like last year... but you can't count on that so only take him if the price is right (around 7 or so). As for SA... I would have taken him with the 3rd pick or less without any hesitation... and I think most others would have too. Just ask yourself... is there any way you don't take LJ, the only back to have 370+ carries in the top 5 picks next year? Then what good is this information? As for your calls of bounce back years... Ahman Green was actually great value this year, as was Deuce for the most part? Jamal Lewis performed about where he was drafted. I guess what I am trying to say is that while your work was somewhat validated... plain common sense was much easier for me to use. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 4,230 Posted January 8, 2007 bored rooned your (not you're) furry foream griffiTH patteRn it's a geek thing.... Honestly, bored lore is being lost at a tragic rate...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 1,025 Posted January 8, 2007 also, why dont you look at what curtis martin did throughout his entire career? Or maybe a guy like eddie george? Hell, LT has probably had those same amount of carries his entire career Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IN$TANT REPAY 11 Posted January 8, 2007 Honestly, bored lore is being lost at a tragic rate...... especially when vets like MDC use the word "sucks" instead of "suxors" in the titles of his posts.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NAn 39 Posted January 8, 2007 Appreciate the comments. Particularly the discerning opinions. It's why I 'look back'....to hear how different people take the analysis, and if possible, tighten the data moving forward. Re: Rams and Buckeyes takes: Similiar opinions to yours were posted in my 'halfway point look back': 'It's obvious they'll decrease' 'Why the arbitrary number of 370?' So I included those in the opening thread. To reitierate: 'Why 370?' Re: that original analysis and analysis since: It was not some arbitrary number of '370' I picked out of a hat. I looked at various numbers to benchmark as a 'heavy workload' and settled on 370 b/c that was the pt when the data really started to say something. Looking at numbers for 350-369 f/carries, the data showed that, more or less, a RB was just as likely to do well as fall off (about 58% would be 'FF productive' if memory serves, not a strong number either way). Again, cited were LT/Rudi who fell in that 350-369 range...Portis was also in that range. He looks like he is on way to very productive season, but he did miss time. Pt being, data seems to be saying that if you do get a RB with 350-369 f/carries (in some cases less), that he could go either way. LT in fact dodged bullet of '370' most of his years and so has continued to be successful year after year. Holmes also never attained 370 during his run as FF stud, but was in 350-369 a few years (even in the 340s a few years). Marshall Faulk also never attained 370, actually in the 320-340 range, during his run. Again, possible conclusion could be drawn that they were successful for so long b/c they didn't attain 370 benchmark. Other RBs who attained 370, fell off quickly, usually the year after attaining that number: Jamal Lewis, Ahman Green, Ricky Williams, Terrell Davis, Eddie George 'Article/Analysis just stated the obvious...that after big year, a given RBs production will drop.' Valid pts were made: 'Not much of a stretch to see Alexander's numbers coming down', 'Edge was going to Cards, don't need to know much to know he would drop off', etc. Absolutely right. But we FFers are funny. B/c despite all that, most FFers still had those guys ranked top1-8, definite 1st rnders....so despite the 'common sense' of 'of course their production will drop' with those players, many still ranked them high. Rams you say yourself it's easier to say: These RBs getting old, Edge going to team with bad OL, Tiki may get vultured. But even with all that, again many/most still had they all in top 8-10 in rankings. Guess my pt is: Yes, it's common sense...but these are FFers were talking about. We don't always deal in common sense (or just ignore it outright). Deuce/Ahman/Jlew still top 20 Yes, they did finish top 20 in scoring amongst RBs (think you wrote top16 which is about right regardless of scoring, either way, warranted a starting ff RB) and do site that in initial post. What I say is that there is 73.8% chance they don't attain 200 ff pts....which none of them did. They were productive, which was fine for Deuce/Ahman considering where they were going in drafts, but many expected a 1st 2nd round year from Jlew and that didn't pan out. Again, just considering the data along with other factors. If you considered data and were looking at Ahman in 5th-6th rnd and would be ok with less than 200 ff pts...go for it. If not and see someone else who you feel there upside is for more than 200 ff pts then go that way. Why not a more indepth analysis on Edge/Tiki had more to do with changing conditions: Edge to Cards and Tiki with Jacobs.' By no means am I saying the data is infallible...Tiki didn't get as many TDs (nice finish with 3 in wk17 though( and though short of last year, still had 2100 total yds. This data is just a tool...in the article I say as much, conceding that I'm not saying outright 'don't draft these guys', just take the information into consideration when drafting/ranking, consider each player's individual situation and adjust accordingly. A few have pointed out that they didn't overhaul their entire draft b/c of the article, but 'adjusted' a bit. Also that Edge going to Cards is a factor more than his prior workload...solid case of considering the individual situation of the player. Case could also be made for Tiki, where one could consider that Jacobs ran well last year when given chance and during preseason. That Jacobs was a 'bigger' RB. One could have considered that and thought: 'Tiki could still got alot of yds, but they may use Jacobs at GL, so Tiki may not get as many TDs'. Again looking at individual situation. I'll add that, when I did original analysis it wasn't just about wear and tear...several others ended up in a form of RBBC or had some individual situation change. One could infer that, again aside from wear and tear, that there are other common factors to a 370 RB decreasing following year: had success with one team, went to less talented team and faltered, maybe b/c of concern for wear and tear coaches put RB in RBBC situation to extend his career/production after a big year, Guess my pt is that regardless of reason these numbers still hold: *83.3% chance that those RBs would decrease in touches (f/carries as defined in article) *71.5% chance that those RBs would decrease in ff production (just 12.3% worthy of 1st round pick) *76.9 % chance that those RBs would miss game/s due to injury 'If I do get #1 pick, regardless of the data, how do I NOT take LT?' Case in pt, in one of my leagues I had the 3 spot, Alexander fell to me there. I had few trade offers for the pick I felt were worthwhile and also couldn't see taking anyone else at that spot...value just wasn't there with anybody else. So I took Alexander at draft and traded him for solid value during season prior to him missing time (also taking into acct that he had not looked great prior to injury anyway). By no means am i saying LT/LJ/SJax are on this list for next year...don't draft them period. That's asinine considering the value they hold to FF community in general. I'm just saying consider the data and adjust as you see fit. Say it was situation of two RBs in late 1st and every general and personal analysis has them about the same, flip flopping at 8 and 9 spot depending on who's drafting. And RB1 is coming of a previous 370 season. Personally that factor, along with considering many others, would be a negative for me for RB1. In case above, I did take Alexander b/c saw no other value there for trading or picking at the time. I followed his situation closely and then when he didn't come out strong early and traded him (at the time his value was only slightly diminished from predraft so got solid return). Where otherwise, if I had not considered the 370 data, I may have just stuck by my guns and held onto him. It's just a tool and another factor to consider. (again, fact that he didn't come out of gate gangbusters also weighed in my decision) And Buckeye re: these comments: someone could take the extra step of tying touches to injury risk without some arbitrary cut off point, and include factors such as age and total career workload, I'd actually be impressed. The career workload thing is in the original data, would just have to dissect a bit. Also, next project I'm considerin is one tying in age of RBs to address the fact/fiction of the common ff notion: 'RBs drop in production after 30years old?' Again, appreciate the comments and appreciate the discussion. Plan is to take the feedback and if possible, tighten the data moving forward. And Buckeye re: these comments: someone could take the extra step of tying touches to injury risk without some arbitrary cut off point, and include factors such as age and total career workload, I'd actually be impressed. The career workload thing is in the original data, would just have to dissect a bit. Also, next project I'm considering is one tying in age of RBs to address the fact/fiction of the common ff notion: 'RBs drop in production after 30years old?' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kutulu 1,676 Posted January 8, 2007 LJ got shut down just this week. Did he hit the too many carries wall? I'm in a league where I can keep one player and I have LJ. I don't know what to do....and Rudi!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moose 0 Posted January 9, 2007 I think some people are missing the point. No one said that anyone who gets a lot of touches is undraftable. It's just another thing to consider, like changes along the offense, strength of schedule, competition for touches, etc. No one came out last season and said that you shouldn't draft LT because of the change to Phillip Rivers, and no one is telling you now that you can't draft LT because he got too many carries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 1,025 Posted January 9, 2007 so what was the deal with CuMart? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RamslovaMartzhata 3 Posted January 9, 2007 (First off, just want to state that I am just talking as a constructive debate, and these are not personal attacks or anything ) So based on this argument, where do you place LJ next year? How about LT... he is sure to hit 370 after Sunday's game? Are you going to honestly tell me that based on this study, you will take Frank Gore, Westbrook or Willie Parker over LT or LJ (in my biased opinion Jackson is arguable as he came very close to LJ, actually outperformed him in PPR's)? And past those guys no one hit that mark anyway, so I'm not sure what use this information is going to have in '07. I think the only thing is that if you have a guy who received a lot of carries the year before... it's probably a good idea to handcuff him. Alexander carried the ball 353 times in 2004... 17 carries short of your bench mark. He went on to break the TD record the next year. He had never missed a game, had scored 15+ TD's for 5 straight years... I just don't think that the extra 17 carries to hit your 370 holds that much weight... and I for one would not have bumped him out of the top 3. I think a better bench mark may actually be career carries if we must do a study... but all in all I just think we geeks are getting into the numbers too much. Basically this is the antithesis of a post I was flamed here for a couple of weeks ago. Analysis such as this was great for FF a couple of years ago. But with the NFL Network showing almost all preseason games and Tivo... I think it's just easier to look at players and their teams now and not get so deep into stats. I just use common sense and my own two eyes. I think some people are missing the point. No one said that anyone who gets a lot of touches is undraftable. It's just another thing to consider, like changes along the offense, strength of schedule, competition for touches, etc. No one came out last season and said that you shouldn't draft LT because of the change to Phillip Rivers, and no one is telling you now that you can't draft LT because he got too many carries. It is worth considering but is a tie-breaker at best. That being said... if a guy got that many carries the year before.... chances are you aren't not going to pick that guy the next year with a very high draft pick. Like I said, only two players will likely hit this mark... what does this study do to LT and LJ's draft status? My answer is nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NAn 39 Posted January 9, 2007 KUTULU Rudi actually just missed the 370 threshold (he also just missed last year), so as far as THIS data, he's ok. LJ though...will be interesting as I believe NO one who has had 400 carries (or JUST carries) has ever bounced back following year with comparable production MOOSE Thank you. That's the point...this is ONE of MANY factors to consider when drafting/ranking/etc. Take it...or not...as you see fit. CMH I do have overall numbers of career carries for most/all of those from original article...I plan to delve into it further. RAMS Hey man, that's how I'm taking it too...as healthy discussion and debate. And I did read your thread about 'just watching games'....nice topic. And it's valid. I'll add though that personally I have a wife, 2 kids (including 6 month old), work and working on my MBA...spending countless hours watching football just won't work for me (I have tivo and dvr too, but you're still looking at alot of hours watching tv. So, in addition to watching and evaluating from my own football knowledge and what I see, I'll take any other edge/info I can get. If that other info is stastics...or ANY additional info to help me make more informed decisions about such an inexact 'science' as FF...I'll take it. Which is why I've personally evolved with my thinking re: ff I use to be all about 'football knowledge'. Now I consider both statiscal data/football info when doing my rankings, projections, etc. I see merits for both. You asked where I had LT ranked...maybe by answering that and going more in depth in my thinking with picking/trading Alexander will make my perspective clearer. Right now, off top of my head I have LT ranked #1. Well, how can I have him ranked there considering the data? Well, first I see what I'd project him at. OBVIOUSLY, after breaking the td record, I'd expect his numbers to come down...maybe closer to his other most recent years: without having his numbers in front of me, say 2100/17tds Then I'd consider what those numbers would look like if he missed a couple of games....lets say 1800/14. Then I'd look at other RBs projections...and off top of my head, I don't see any other RB attaining even those numbers. And if I turn out wrong, which is a definite possibility, and he does buck data trend then I'm ahead of the game. Re: Alexander Again, I had the 3rd pick and Alexander fell to me after LT/LJ. So, of course considering data I passed on Alexander right? No, of course not. Passing on his value there and taking someone else there would be asinine considering the PERCIEVED drop off after the top3. Now had their been another FOURTH player in the top tier, I may have gone that route, but that wasn't the case so just b/c of this data I'm not going to throw away Alexander's value. So I picked him, keeping my 370 data 'in my pocket' and made sure to watch his progress early on. What I noticed in early games: -He missed Jones -In fact, whole offense seemed to miss Jones -Overall, offense not as fluid/strong as in previous year...likely won't be a 'powerhouse', so less pts, less production, etc. So now I have all that plus the 370 data. I considered ALL of that and decided I liked the odds of moving him rather than keeping him better, if I got decent return value for him. I was able to move him for solid value so pulled the trigger and dealt him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgcrawfish 232 Posted January 9, 2007 NAn, that was good stuff when it came out and still remains so. The problem here is that everyone is looking for the "predictive formula" for how everything will occur and criticizing you for not having it, but in your defense, there is no such thing. Before this season, after reading your analysis and equating it into my rankings, I took the time to warn the guy with the #1 pick in our league that if I had that pick I would not take LJ based on 3 things: First, although he didn't reach the 370 carry point last season, his workload in the 2nd half of the season was that of a back that had, he took all the abuse of that 370 number in 9 weeks. Second, I advised him that LT would have a better season because although people assumed teams were going to make Rivers beat them by overloading to stop LT, it wouldn't work, because Rivers was better than most people knew. I even went so far as to tell him that LT's #'s would be down at the start of the season and pick up after about week 4 (although there is NO WAY I would have expected the explosion he went on) which I also told the guy who picked LT and was scratching his head up through week 3. Finally, and most importantly, I told the guy holding the #1 pick that the most important reason had less to do with carries and more to do with "other factors", mainly that LJ had just lost is probable Hall of Fame blockers on the left side of his line. Then I made really bold statement that if I had the #3 spot (which I didn't, I pulled #5) that I would NOT draft Alexander there but would opt for Steven Jackson instead. That was based on his carries/workload the season before, the loss of Hutchinson on the left side, his age, and the "other factor" of the Madden Curse! Sitting at the 5 spot I prayed that Jackson (who I had rated as the #3 back) would fall to me (which of course he didn't) because I really wanted to try and pair him with Frank Gore. Unfortunately I got beat to the punch on both and reached for Ronnie Brown (who would have been a very consistent ck were it not for the injury) and pulled Manning in the 2nd. Point here is this...NAn's formula isn't telling you not to take LJ or LT with your top spots. It's telling you that it's a risk you need to factor in. Age is a risk to factor in. Team changes (offensive line in particular) are a risk to factor in. That said, my very premature next season top 3, in order, is as follows: LTomlinson SJackson LJohnson Nothing shocking there, except I considered not even having LJ there based on almost the same factors as last year...bad offensive line, too many carries and now probable QB issues. Anyway, nice job, keep up the good work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites