Is there a RB stat for this (Shourright or any other stat guys?)

[dabeastdabone]

I took a stab at it with the website shouright gave us, as I also became curious.

I broke it up as 8 categories....-0 (Every time caught behind the line of scrimmage), 0 (No gain), 1-2 yards(Considered ineffective run), 3-5 yards (Somewhat effective), 6-10 (Effective run), 11-20(good run), 20 and over (Great run), and Fumble.

------------143 attempts---------

-0 (Behind line of scrimmage)............22 times (15.38% of the time)

0 yards (No gain)..............................14 times (9.79% of the time)

1-2 yards (ineffective run).................33 times (23.07% of the time)

3-5 yards (somewhat effective run)...38 times (26.50% of times)

6-10 yards (effective run).................24 times (16.78% of the time)

11-20 yards (good run)....................7 times (4.8% of the time)

20 and more (Great run)....................4 times (2.70% of the time)

Fumble ...........................................1 time ( .06% of the time)

-----------effectiveness-----------

-0 to 2 yards (Bad run)...........69 times (48.25% of the time)

3 to 10 yards (good run)...........62 times (43.35% of the time)

11 to 20+ (Great run).......11 times (7.69% of the time)

Fumbled....................................1 time (.06% of the time)

Nice but I don't think 3 yards is ever a good run and is only effective if 3 gives you a first. It's a hard thing to graph out I believe. Example as stated a 3 yard run isn't very good, additionally a 15 yard run might not be good either if its 3rd and 20. It seems to me from watching Miller he has a knack for being ineffective while looking like he has the skills he needs.

 

[NBP81]

I'm not sure anything qualifies as a bad rush. They are all gorgeous to me. Wonderful football.

The theme of a passing league is exaggerated to such extent that Mike Mayock got caught up in the brainwashing last night. When San Diego rushed for the 42nd time in defeating Denver, Mayock announced that most teams rush only 20 or 21 times per game. He actually believed it. Meanwhile, only Atlanta and Dallas are in that area. We are a couple of notches above. I don't remember anybody finishing below 320 rushes, which is 20 per game. The league median is generally in the 26.5 to 27 range.

You're right, in the past five years, the lowest amount of rushes for a palyoff team was 355 iirc and it was the det Lions... 2 games ago, we were on pace for 335... thats just baffling especially with a 2nd year QB...

 

[JMarino]

What does it matter? If he runs for 100 yards, it doesn't matter if it was 10 x 10 yard runs or 9 x 0 yard runs and 1 x 100 yard run. Either way, you got down the field and scored and the average is the same.

 

[WVDolphan]

I don't get it. If he averages 4.4 ypc, he's likely to get 4.4 yards per attempt. That's just the way averages work. Maybe what you can do, is look at all his carries. Remove the top 5% longest carries and the lowest 5% carries, and then do the average of the middle 90%

You can make a simple box and whisker plot and notice outliers. You could also choose to eliminate extreme outliers as you are suggesting.

Egnew is not good with math or understanding the terms of it at least, but I understand what he is getting at. He seems to understand that Miller has quite a few long carries that will balloon his average and because of that believes that a typical carry for him will be a bit lower than what his average is. I dont think he needs the number to show what he already knows. It seems he watches the games and understands that Miller's average per carry is deceptive to what a "normal" carry is for him. But, he also needs to understand what the definition of average is and not use the word to mean typical.

 

[WVDolphan]

You want to 'bucketize' carries. It's an interesting idea. Barry Sanders ran a lot of negative runs, but also broke big ones. His big ones skewed his average, and offset the negatives. You want a stat that exposes that.

Mode and Median would be of interest to you. Suspect a guy like Barry's median would be much lower than his average. Guys with a median/average close together are guys who consistently gain 3-4 but never break the big one.

Furthermore, this is exactly why I argue against people who suggest Sanders was the best back ever, or even top 5 for that matter. He was a great back, sure. And when I argue with people about Sanders they of course go with extremes and cant accept that not thinking he is a top 5 RB dosent mean I believe he wasnt great.

Point is, Sanders put his team in quite a few adverse down and distance situations. Id rather have a guy who had a similar average per carry, but rarely had negative or zero gain attempts. Sanders was a great highlight film, but that dosent make him one of the top backs of all time. His style was not condusive to winning.

This dosent mean I wouldnt have gladly had him on my team either. He would be a great asset for any team and worth putting the ball in his hands quite a few times per game. He brings a dimension to the game that is difficult to deal with. A guy who can deliver a HR like that is a great weapon.

I also dont buy the argument that he needed a better OL and it wouldve made him so much greater. His style was such that his OL did not make much difference in his carries on most attempts.

 

[MartinTheSNAKE]

You can make a simple box and whisker plot and notice outliers. You could also choose to eliminate extreme outliers as you are suggesting.

Egnew is not good with math or understanding the terms of it at least, but I understand what he is getting at. He seems to understand that Miller has quite a few long carries that will balloon his average and because of that believes that a typical carry for him will be a bit lower than what his average is. I dont think he needs the number to show what he already knows. It seems he watches the games and understands that Miller's average per carry is deceptive to what a "normal" carry is for him. But, he also needs to understand what the definition of average is and not use the word to mean typical.

How exactly am i not good at math? Im actually very good at math. Is it because my OP example didnt average out to 4.0? I wasnt trying to make it average, i was just giving examples. I know what the word average is and if you read the thread you would understand thats not what im looking for. I was looking for a % of what he was likely to run per carry. Tay understood this perfectly and gave me exactly what i was asking for.

If im bad at math because i didnt do it myself, well thats because i didnt care enough to put the time in to do it nor do i really have the time to do it. I was simply asking if there was a site or something that already calculated this or not. TAY did an awsome job in doing what i was asking for.


I dont understand the dig @ my math skills and why it needed to be brought up in the first place.

 

[tay0365]

Awsome job dude. SO basically 50% of the time he is going to have a bad run lol.

Actually the way I see it, with O-line problems most of the season, he has been consistent more then 50% of the time. I know what your saying, there does seem to be more consistency, and more explosiveness from him (with his speed, he should have more then just 11 above average runs, but there is a lot to be encouraged about with him....including how few times he puts the ball on the ground.

 

[Finland]

Im curious if there is a stat recorded on what a RB's average is on his carries. I dont mean his YPC...

For example.. Lamar Miller's YPC is 4.0 ... But is there a % recorded stat on what he normally gets per attempt? Miller doesnt get a lot of 3-4 yard carries.. Hes more of a 1, 1, 2, -2, 1, 15, -3, -1, 1, 2, 30 type of running back... What im looking for is a stat that tells what amount of yards is he likely to get per attempt. Am i making sense?


If he runs 10 times... runs it for 1 yard (2 times) 2 yards (5 times) -3 (1 time) 5 yards (2 times) For that span he would average 2 yards 50% of the time. 2 yards 20% of the time. 5 yards 20% of the time. -3 10% of the time.

Is there a recorded stat for something like this?

If not, i think this would be a pretty good stat to keep. Would show the consistency of a RB better then his YPC would be.

I think you want to know what his "mode" is, which number comes up the most.

 

[tay0365]

Nice but I don't think 3 yards is ever a good run and is only effective if 3 gives you a first. It's a hard thing to graph out I believe. Example as stated a 3 yard run isn't very good, additionally a 15 yard run might not be good either if its 3rd and 20. It seems to me from watching Miller he has a knack for being ineffective while looking like he has the skills he needs.

Actually for 3 yard gain can be considered somewhat effective, consider you get 3 yards on 1st and 2nd, you will be left witha 3rd and 4, which is doable. To me 2 yards or less is where you failed.....I guess this type of thinking come bacl all the way from highschool, where I played mostly defense, and we always were told that 3 yards or more was a huge no no, and i do believe 3 yards can help a team.

Even a Running back that averages 3 yards an attempt is not considered bad, just average. JMO

 

[Wildbill3]

I think I'd just divide it into two catagories percentage of less than 3 yards per carry and those over 3 yards per carry. basically can you trust a running back to pick up positive yardage that helps you win a game? if you rush twice does he give you a good chance at 3rd and short?


Now a running back like ricky in his prime didn't even get rolling until he had 10+ carries and of course after 18 or so rushes he usually started destroying run defenses.

 

[MartinTheSNAKE]

I think you want to know what his "mode" is, which number comes up the most.

Kind of.. But i dont just want 1 number. I am kinda looking for Tay did... Give a % of each run or a range of runs like he did.

 

[MartinTheSNAKE]

Actually for 3 yard gain can be considered somewhat effective, consider you get 3 yards on 1st and 2nd, you will be left witha 3rd and 4, which is doable. To me 2 yards or less is where you failed.....I guess this type of thinking come bacl all the way from highschool, where I played mostly defense, and we always were told that 3 yards or more was a huge no no, and i do believe 3 yards can help a team.

Even a Running back that averages 3 yards an attempt is not considered bad, just average. JMO

I would consider 1-2 a bad or w.e you listed them as... But i would consider 3 in its own catagory. Not bad... but not great.. Maybe "effective" 4-6 would be a "good" run and 7+ blah blah blah.

WHat part of Jersey you from?

 

[Wildbill3]

Furthermore, this is exactly why I argue against people who suggest Sanders was the best back ever, or even top 5 for that matter. He was a great back, sure. And when I argue with people about Sanders they of course go with extremes and cant accept that not thinking he is a top 5 RB dosent mean I believe he wasnt great.

Point is, Sanders put his team in quite a few adverse down and distance situations. Id rather have a guy who had a similar average per carry, but rarely had negative or zero gain attempts. Sanders was a great highlight film, but that dosent make him one of the top backs of all time. His style was not condusive to winning.

This dosent mean I wouldnt have gladly had him on my team either. He would be a great asset for any team and worth putting the ball in his hands quite a few times per game. He brings a dimension to the game that is difficult to deal with. A guy who can deliver a HR like that is a great weapon.

I also dont buy the argument that he needed a better OL and it wouldve made him so much greater. His style was such that his OL did not make much difference in his carries on most attempts.

I'd agree. ES was a better back because he rarely ever put his team in adverse situations, even if he never had those (well actually he did, but not as often as barry) exciting long runs. you could trust smith to get you into 3rd and short. You couldn't trust barry.

 

[Shouright]

http://smartfootball.com/gameplanning/first-down-means-everything

 

[Awsi Dooger]

It's impressive that Chip Kelly has transferred his Oregon run happy mode to the Eagles. They have the second highest number of rushes in the league, barely behind the Seahawks. That gives him a chance to be successful long term. Philadelphia the past 6 weeks or so has been where Carolina was late last season, the most underrated team in the league. The Eagles are 5th in YPPA Differential and 2nd in rushes per game.

As always, I'll continue to focus on number of rushes and not the supposed effectiveness of them. The posts related to yards per rush are so dizzying my system can barely tolerate them.

BTW, New England has allowed the highest number of rushes per game in the league, although it's an unusually low number to lead that category. New England is the only team allowing 30+ rushes per game. Normally at least 5 or 6 teams finish the year above 30. Bad coaching this season, if I had to summarize.