Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Why Yards Per Carry is not a good measuring stick


Steeltown Dre
 Share

Recommended Posts

Was bored so did some quick research - you see all sorts of sites that talk about "stout run defenses" and either state the yards per game they allow, or yards per carry.

 

Take a look at the Jets, for example. If you look at their yards allowed per game, they give up 135 per game, good for #29 in the league. But if you look at their yards/carry allowed, they only allow 3.8 ypc, which puts them tied for #11 in the league.

 

So I looked at all the teams that allow less than 3.9 yards per carry. There were 13 teams. The following is a list of those teams, their yards allowed per carry, and their total yards allowed per game:

 

Pittsburgh 3.2, 82.0

Chicago 3.3, 95.2

Carolina 3.4, 81.0

Tampa Bay 3.4, 88.0

San Diego 3.5, 79.6

New York (N) 3.7, 88.7

Baltimore 3.7, 102.4

Green Bay 3.7, 110.3

Miami 3.7, 115.1

San Francisco 3.7, 117.0

Kansas City 3.8, 90.9

Philadelphia 3.8, 111.3

New York (A) 3.8, 135.3

 

As you can see, you have a good number of division leaders in there (Pittsburgh, Chicago, Carolina) and a good number of division basement teams in there (San Fran, Green Bay, Philly, Baltimore, NY Jets).

 

If you only look at yards per carry, you find that their combined record is 57-60. A losing record for the top rushing defenses in the league?

 

So what gives? Well, if you use 100 yards per game as the ruler, and set those teams who have a low yards per carry and < 100 yards per game allowed, you can total their records and get 42-21.

 

Taking those teams who have a low yards per carry and > 100 yards per game allowed, you can total their records and get 15-39.

 

As you can see, it is not just the yards per carry that matter.

 

Now, on the other hand, if you look at teams who allow < 100 yards per game rushing and ignore the yards per carry, you find there are 10 teams and their records are 64-26.

 

Much more telling than looking at the top teams ranked according to yards per carry.

 

Similarly, looking at teams that allow > 100 yards per game, you find that there are 10 teams as well. Ignoring yards per carry, these 10 teams have a combined record of 34-56.

 

Of course there are many factors that come into play, and you can look at injuries, slumping offenses, whatever you want.

 

But just by looking at these stats alone, you can see why I don't really care when someone says "Miami has a low yards allowed per carry" - maybe they do but they still give up over 115 yards per game.

 

Just like anything, you can spin statistics to support any point you want. But don't let someone scare you away from starting your RB against teams who have a low yards per carry - look also at the total yardage they allow. This is not new news by any means, but I was just messing around w/ some stats and thought I'd share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point and nice research. But YPC and average yards per game are good measuring sticks when used appropriately.

 

If a DEF allows a high YPC and is facing a run-first team, that's worth noting.

 

If teams allow a low YPC - but a high average yards per game - its likely because offenses are electing to run the ball on a team with a weak offense rather than passing the ball.

 

Another thing that isn't factored in as much as it should be is rushing TDs. For example, the Browns allow a lot of yards, but not many rushing TDs. So while they are a good run-defense to go against, they aren't a RB hunting ground for massive fantasy scoring.

 

Another aspect that isn't readily ascertainable is how susceptible certain run-defenses are to pass-catching RBs. I've yet to find a data source that breaks down that info in an easily digestable fashion.

 

We use the tools we have, even if they aren't perfect. Clue me into where I can find better ones, or how I can use the ones I've got more effectively, and I for one will listen.

Edited by yo mama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Another aspect that isn't readily ascertainable is how susceptible certain run-defenses are to pass-catching RBs.  I've yet to find a data source that breaks down that info in an easily digestable fashion.

 

 

 

1153545[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

That is something that would be pretty hard to measure, but I would find it very useful. The old saying: different schemes for different teams. Lets take team A and have them play San Diego. Team A may play a certain way to try to limit LT, and not let him get passes. Whereas when Team A plays Philly, they may try to stop (formerly) TO and McNabb, and let Westbrook get those catches.

 

Similarly, the teams playing Team A will have different schemes. For instance, San Diego may try to get passes to LT, even if Team A is trying to stop them. Whereas Philly may not try to get passes to Westbrook, even though Team A is letting them.

 

Some coaches are better at in game corrections than others, and so some will recognize how to take advantage of Team A's defense during the game, and others will stick with what has worked for them up to that game. Cowher will have a gameplan and he'll stick with it most of the game, which is one criticism of him. Where as Bilichick will change up at halftime or during the game, he adapts better.

 

Then you factor in the score, and certain teams will be playing looser or tigher as a result of the score.

 

Those things: Scheme of the 1st team (try to stop those plays or allow them), Scheme of the opposing team (try to get those plays or not worry about them), Coaches in game adjustments, and score of the game -

 

all those things change from week to week. So while I would like to be able to accurately predict how many passing yards Westbrook will get on a given week, it really depends on the schemes of both the defense and your offense, which we won't know, whether the coach will adapt and the score, both of which we can predict.

 

It would be hard but some form of statistics is better than none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, on the other hand, if you look at teams who allow < 100 yards per game rushing and ignore the yards per carry, you find there are 10 teams and their records are 64-26.

 

[snip

 

Similarly, looking at teams that allow > 100 yards per game, you find that there are 10 teams as well. Ignoring yards per carry, these 10 teams have a combined record of 34-56.

 

1153485[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Where did the other 12 teams go? Do they all average exactly 100 yds?

 

Also yo mama's point is a good one - but within the scope of looking at individual week-to-week matchups. That is, of my two defenses, which should I play THIS week?

 

The analysis here is more geared to who should I DRAFT for my team for the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting stats Steeltown and great research! This is interesting from a NFL standpoint.

 

On the Fantasy Football side, I pay more attention to the yards per game stat than anything when looking at who to start fantasy wise. The bottom line is the end of game stats. If my RB has 150 yards I could care less if they carried the ball 15 times or 30 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice work, and interesting. Last year, Miami's run D looked bad on paper, but watch them in a game and they were pretty good. Last week, the Jets gave up 103 yards on 34 carries. If you watched the game, the Jets run defense played very well. S Davis had 27 carries for 81 yards. That is 3.0 YPC. The question is, how could the Panthers run so much? The answer is because the Jets turned the ball over 6 times.

 

Of the teams you listed with low defensive YPC's almost everyone of the "bad" teams has a negative turnover ratio, while the "good" teams have a positive turnover ratio. In fact, there is an even more direct corellation.... just look at how many turnovers a team has. How many times they give the ball up. With a few exceptions, you can expect an RB who is playing on a team that creates turnovers, and against a team that tends to cough it up often for having a very good week. His number of carries will shoot way up, the way it did for Carolina last week. Teams that don't often play with a lead are the ones who get run on the most, like the Jets who have an average rush total of over 35, while Indy is down around 23 per game. All of the teams that defend 30 runs per game give up over 100 yards too, invariably. While the Colts have a hefty YPC against of 4.2, they give up less total yardage per game, and it's not because the run D is good. It's because they play with a lead.

 

So, point well taken, YPC is NOT a good indicator of how well an RB may fair, but turnovers and average rushes per game against are. It is an indication of how good a teams rush defense actually is on the field however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a way to save this thread under my controls or anything?

 

1154188[/snapback]

 

 

 

This thread will eventually go into the archives. My best suggestion is create a bookmark on your computer of the complete address of this thread: http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...188entry1154188

 

Or put this in your personal note pad in "my controls"

Edited by Big John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread will eventually go into the archives.  My best suggestion is create a bookmark on your computer of the complete address of this thread: http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...188entry1154188

 

1154241[/snapback]

 

 

 

Thanks. Yeah, that's my backup plan, but my computer's crashed about 3 times in the last year. I want to know I have it. Without the search function I could never seem to use I'm not sure how I'll find it if I need to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.  Yeah, that's my backup plan, but my computer's crashed about 3 times in the last year.  I want to know I have it.  Without the search function I could never seem to use I'm not sure how I'll find it if I need to.

 

1154246[/snapback]

 

 

 

I edited my post to say that there is a personal note pad in "my controls" and you can paste it there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like anything, you can spin statistics to support any point you want.  But don't let someone scare you away from starting your RB against teams who have a low yards per carry - look also at the total yardage they allow.  This is not new news by any means, but I was just messing around w/ some stats and thought I'd share.

 

1153485[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Great post! This is along the lines of something I've thought about in relation to YPC; specifically, shouldn't we look at the standard deviation as well?

 

Consider two backs who avg. 4.0 yards per carry. If one has a std. deviation of 0, which means he ALWAYS gets exactly 4 yards (lighten up, it's an example), isn't he more valuable than someone who has a std. deviation of 2.5 (more long runs, but some that are less, even negative yards)? So, for team defenses, it might be interesting to see what happens with your list if you also could look at std. deviations (a stat that to my knowledge nobody keeps).

 

Sorry, this thread got the numbers junkie in me all excited...

Edited by marti332
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The unfortunate thing in all of this is that I rarely ever get to use data for a WDIS. I am usually (if I'm lucky) stuck with two clear number 1 and 2 RB's. This year has been particularly miserable with the injuries and the RB merry go round. For instance, should I start Gore over J Jones or Gado? Yeah, that bad. I'm lucky to have an RB who isnt in a RBBC situation. But, for those who do have the luxury of several viable options, my favorite is to look at average carries against. Even Chicago, who has a good run D is at 30 per game, and as a result surrender over 100 yards on average. Especially this year, consider yourself fortunate if you have 3 viable RB's to WDIS over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did the other 12 teams go? Do they all average exactly 100 yds?

 

 

1153989[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry - I meant to say there are 10 teams that average under 100 yards per game allowed, and 10 teams that average over 120 yards per game. The remainder (12) are between 100 and 120.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the teams you listed with low defensive YPC's almost everyone of the "bad" teams has a negative turnover ratio, while the "good" teams have a positive turnover ratio. In fact, there is an even more direct corellation.... just look at how many turnovers a team has. How many times they give the ball up. With a few exceptions, you can expect an RB who is playing on a team that creates turnovers, and against a team that tends to cough it up often for having a very good week. His number of carries will shoot way up, the way it did for Carolina last week. Teams that don't often play with a lead are the ones who get run on the most, like the Jets who have an average rush total of over 35, while Indy is down around 23 per game. All of the teams that defend 30 runs per game give up over 100 yards too, invariably. While the Colts have a hefty YPC against of 4.2, they give up less total yardage per game, and it's not because the run D is good. It's because they play with a lead.

 

1154152[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That is exactly right - if you look at teams that have a high ypc average ( > 3.9) but allow under 100 yards, you have:

 

Denver @ 4.0 ypc but only 85.1 yards per game

Dallas @ 4.1 ypc but only 99.3 yards per game

Indy @ 4.2 ypc but only 97.4 yards per game

 

The league average for attempts per game is right around 29 or so. But when teams face Denver, Dallas, or Indy, they only attempt to run the ball 21, 23, and 24 times (respectively). This is not because their rushing defenses are extremely stout, it is because all of these teams offenses.

 

They get out to early leads, control the clock, and force their opponents to throw the ball 35 times per game which is definitely above the league average. And that is why their record is 22-5.

 

So I guess when constructing a team, it is ok if you allow 4 or more ypc, as long as your offense can control the ball, keep the other team off the field, and get out to a lead, to keep you opponent playing catchup. Indy got much better in the offseason in the first point, which is controling the ball and establishing a good running attack, something all 3 of those teams share - in addition to good balance on offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider two backs who avg. 4.0 yards per carry. If one has a std. deviation of 0, which means he ALWAYS gets exactly 4 yards (lighten up, it's an example), isn't he more valuable than someone who has a std. deviation of 2.5 (more long runs, but some that are less, even negative yards)? So,  for team defenses, it might be interesting to see what happens with your list if you also could look at std. deviations (a stat that to my knowledge nobody keeps).

 

 

 

1154275[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That would be interesting. I remember one back saying (I forget his name or the exact quote, but he was a big, power rusher) "You need 2 yards, I'll get you 3. You need 3 yards, I'll get you 3. You need 8 yards, I'll get you 3."

 

The guy could always move the pile, but wouldn't ever bust too many out. I think the great RBs can do both - they can dig or dive for a needed yard or two, they can get their 4.5 yards per carry average, but are always ready to bust out a 35 yard gainer.

 

As far as defenses are concerned, you are right - the ones with a deviation closer to zero would be better in my mind than those that allow the big play from a RB. Even if it means you aren't getting many rbs tackled for a loss, I'd rather only let the guy get 2.5 yards on 90% of his runs, then let the guy get 2.5 on 70%, and the other 30% he's busting big gains and converting first downs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be interesting.  I remember one back saying (I forget his name or the exact quote, but he was a big, power rusher) "You need 2 yards, I'll get you 3.  You need 3 yards, I'll get you 3.  You need 8 yards, I'll get you 3."

1154804[/snapback]

 

Leroy Hoard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leroy Hoard

1154887[/snapback]

 

Thanks. After knowing that, the original quote was:

 

"If you need three yards, I'll get you three. If you need five yards I'll get you three."

 

At the same time, I found a link back to 1999 where Dr. Z from Sports Illustrated rates the top 40 RBs from 1999.

 

He makes an interesting when rating the runners:

 

You will find some serious arguing points, if you look at productivity (i.e., yardage totals). That's not my primary gauge. A lot of things go into the accumulation of yardage -- how good are the blockers; what kind of opposition are you facing and is it loading up to stop you; what kind of system are you working in, etc. What I'm rating is pure talent in running the football, as shown this season -- with a few extras thrown in, such as durability, effectiveness in running after catching a pass (it's a different type of skill) and desire to keep hammering in a bad situation. But pure running is the No. 1 criterion here, and I always enjoy talking with people about the great runners, past and present.

 

Then oddly enough, his top 2 RBs are:

 

1. Warrick Dunn

2. Dorsey Levens

 

They are ahead of guys like Faulk, Edge and Curtis Martin. It's a good read, though, seeing some great names forgotten these past 6 years, like:

 

Tim Biakabatuka

Errict Rhett

Robert Smith

Natrone Means

Kenny Bynum

 

to name a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information