2017 Running Back Report

[hammertoes]

DD... Thank you for sharing your hard work with this community while asking for nothing in return. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

[sloth8u]

great work!!! im not a metrics guy myself, and im assuming you go by the numbers.

i was very pleased to see that foreman hit that top tier. drafted him pretty early in these early drafts from my film watching....and was hoping there is a high ceiling if things click. your data is a welcome addition as i navigate my rb landscape up until week 1 on several teams. much appreciated.

[Astonishment]

I have been MIA because of work the last couple days, so I missed this report until now - GREAT work as usual!

It's interesting both how we have differed on certain players and maybe even more so on the player we agree on! I loved Fournette's tape, so I am glad he scored better on your charts than he did on mine. The other with a large difference in scoring seems to be McCaffrey (and Mixon to a lesser degree). I think that comes down to what we set as the standards for our baselines - like said you are looking for stud potential only, and I was looking for general success.

Even more important is how ridiculously well Foreman scored on both metrics! I really hope that the overweight issue blows over because it looks like he has all the tools to be a really good player!

Great job!

[Cameron Giles]

That's not true. CMC scored 3rd - ahead of both Mixon and Fournette and they specifically cited his elite athleticism as a reason why: http://rotoviz.com/2017/04/2017-rb-pros ... vid=3vzy42

Sorry, I referenced the wrong model. I meant the RB Success Model. Rotoviz has 2 models:

1. The RB Prospect Lab - this scores RB's based on combine data and compares them to past prospects with similar metrics
2. The RB Success Model - this uses 40yd/weight/final rushing yards/final receiving yards to predict success

The guy who writes the success model articles goes on to write more about his process in another article. He openly admits that weight adjusted 40 is conditioned by 3-cone and agility measurements when determining success. http://rotoviz.com/2016/02/which-measur ... vid=4cwUNh

CMC's elite numbers in every category besides speed more than make up for having 'just adequate' speed. He'll feed the same exact way Shady feeds.

Me thinks someone has not read the entire report. I've pretty much answered both of those statements/questions already.

So it has, but the reasoning seems arbitrary I guess. Please don't think me rude for kicking the tires on your contribution, I'm just not the kind of person who swallows things people on the internet tell me wholesale and typically when people post their systems online they're looking for feedback and criticism as well as praise. Just trying to help.

I don't see how McCaffrey and McCoy are similar players. Their games are completely different. McCaffrey can't​ handle a true RB carry workload with his frame and lack of strength. In college, you can get by with it.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

Thanks for sharing

This is a technical question, but I assume that when you started this project, you looked at previous players stats and production to make your model, so they're basically the Training Set.

Do you actualise the model to include in the training, the most recent productions and the new players or do you keep it as it is ?

Also if you get, say, a 80% success rate on the Training Set of players in the studs category, you can't except this rate to apply to new players unless you get a lot more data. I have to assume there is a lot of overfitting here, but that's OK you CAN'T do better with this kind of data.

Still, sound like your track record is great for especially if you predicted DJ. (Sadly, I went to check and saw that you deleted your opening post in the 2015 thread, not that i doubt it, the reactions are there, but was curious to see the write up)

Can you explain the bolded section a bit, not sure if I quite understand.

Let me answer the rest as best I can. I looked at all the previous "stud" Rb's to see what they all had in common and/or what metrics were most predictive of success. Once I found that there are indeed numbers which are predictive of NFL success as a 3-down workhorse rb, it was quite a long period of trial and error until I was able to build a system that actually worked to predict incoming rookies. I tried formulas, points systems, nothing worked and those types of systems would never work to the degree of accuracy we need. Even though it was frustrating, I did gain valuable information from that period of trial and error and eventually came up with what is essentially a query system, and it's not nearly as complicated as you think. I assume by over-fitting you mean the process is lengthy and convoluted to "fit" all of the stud players onto one list while excluding everyone else, but that's not the case at all. In my estimation your assumption is wrong. It works because the requirements are very strict, not because there are a lot of them. Once you figure out which numbers are important and which aren't, it's astoundingly simple really. Tiers 1 and 2 are pretty straightforward, although like I said in the OP it doesn't sit right with me the way Le'Veon Bell in included. He's a bit of a one-off relic from an older version, but i'm content to see how he does first before I start moving him around. The other lists get a little more dicey (Tiers 3 and 4) as you can tell with the percentages much lower than the other lists, and you're assumption of over-fitting might be correct there. But you're also correct in that there's no other way to do them, or maybe there is but I just haven't figured it out yet. I think something is better than nothing. Only time will tell how those lists fair. I've been tinkering with them for quite some time but this year is the first time they're predictive as currently constituted. If I had data for every player over the last 20 years, I wouldn't have to do the "wait and see" approach. Unfortunately I can only work with what I have, which is data for 370 players now, not nearly ideal but thankfully a lot more than what I started with.

This was fun, regardless, and provides good grist for thinking about who to draft and when. I do have one question on the model and how it relates to the coming years: I suspect guys like Bell and McCaffrey might not show well in a model based on past results because they are something very new—ie., they bust the model. Just on tape, Bell is—at least arguably—the single best back in football, in a tier of his own. His running style and ability to catch are singular. His three cone for a man his size was historic and he looks like a historically successful back so far, too, with that three cone showing up all the time. I suspect McCaffrey represents a similar, New NFL Back sort of prototype. His change of direction skills and ability to make defenders miss in tiny spaces is straight out of a video game. That said, the model strikes me as solid otherwise, and last night I managed to get Foreman at 2.12 in one of my leagues. Cheers! —Steve

There are a few players in my database strikingly similar to CMC that have failed big time, he certainly does not bust the model. CMC is different in that he's expected to catch a lot of passes and be valuable that way. If you want extend the parameters a bit and say he's like Reggie Bush, that's fine but overall Reggie Bush was not much of a rusher in the NFL. It seems a lot of people have their hopes pinned on CMC being like LeSean McCoy, but I believe strongly that McCoy's workout scores are not an accurate representation of him. That's just my opinion anyway.

As for Le'veon (6.75 3 cone), there have been bigger backs with a quicker 3-cone. Jackie Battle weighed 240 and had a quicker 3-cone than Bell with a 6.54 [Pro day though]. Others in the ballpark. Steven Ridley at 225, Doug Martin at 223, Latavius Murray 223, Mikel Leshoure at 227 all had quick 3-cones (range from 6.78-6.82), not quite as quick as Bell but pretty quick. I guess the point is there is a precedent for bigger backs with quick 3-cones. Bell is certainly near the top of the list though.

I have been MIA because of work the last couple days, so I missed this report until now - GREAT work as usual!

It's interesting both how we have differed on certain players and maybe even more so on the player we agree on! I loved Fournette's tape, so I am glad he scored better on your charts than he did on mine. The other with a large difference in scoring seems to be McCaffrey (and Mixon to a lesser degree). I think that comes down to what we set as the standards for our baselines - like said you are looking for stud potential only, and I was looking for general success.

Even more important is how ridiculously well Foreman scored on both metrics! I really hope that the overweight issue blows over because it looks like he has all the tools to be a really good player!

Great job!

Thanks! Yeah, Foreman being at the top of both our lists makes me feel a bit better. I was pretty much on an island with David Johnson 2 years ago lol. Agree on CMC and Mixon.

[Concept Coop]

Would you mind sharing the numeric/qualitative values for each player mentioned, OP? Doing so shouldn't compromise the formula itself.

[FiremanEd]

I'll be very interested to see how Foreman turns out. Based on what I saw he was a straight line runner who thankfully had enough speed to get the holes that were there. He's big too, which is nice and makes for impressive size/speed, but I don't see him use it enough other than hopefully it allows him to withstand the punishment. I'm a skeptic and while I appreciate the model, am not changing my football opinion on what I've seen. Seems size/speed or BMI focused. Can't blame him for maximizing what was there though while at Texas.

While I also agree that his hand impacted his ball sexurity, people are banking on that pretty good. That coaching staff isn't likely to tolerate his existing fumble rate.

Miller is a bigger name that locked in long term lead back, so I agree the 'backup'/handcuff concept is overblown by many if he's going late 2nd. I'm just hoping people don't pass everything to the wind and think best case across the board just because of this model. I appreciate it and enjoy it, but the success rate just seems a little odd given that there are always variables outside of any tested numbers that would theoretically drive a success rate lower than this. Random chance variables. I see the logic on Gurley to remove him, but it also seems convenient to have him and then remove him following the sub par season.

Ultimately I'm not meaning to be critical, as I love the annual report and insights. Always enjoy your unrelated posts too. This is just me taking about the player and talking out loud about my opinion and some skepticism. Even so, I'd be lying if I didn't say Foreman is a little more appealing to me today than yesterday before I read it and I will be going back to watch some more tape on him.

[spotxc]

so basically u have to have a certain size based speed score combined with college production it looks like, and can't fall past the 3rd rd in draft also

[Goddard]

Definitely some interesting stuff. Appreciate you taking your time to do this and post it on here for all of us. I like Foreman and think he's very talented, but not sure I'm ready to move him ahead of the top 4 yet. I also liked Hunt, but had him behind Kamara. I think I'm open to moving him past Kamara now as my RB6.

[Concept Coop]

Sorry, I referenced the wrong model. I meant the RB Success Model. Rotoviz has 2 models:

1. The RB Prospect Lab - this scores RB's based on combine data and compares them to past prospects with similar metrics
2. The RB Success Model - this uses 40yd/weight/final rushing yards/final receiving yards to predict success

The guy who writes the success model articles goes on to write more about his process in another article. He openly admits that weight adjusted 40 is conditioned by 3-cone and agility measurements when determining success. http://rotoviz.com/2016/02/which-measur ... vid=4cwUNh

CMC's elite numbers in every category besides speed more than make up for having 'just adequate' speed. He'll feed the same exact way Shady feeds.

Me thinks someone has not read the entire report. I've pretty much answered both of those statements/questions already.

So it has, but the reasoning seems arbitrary I guess. Please don't think me rude for kicking the tires on your contribution, I'm just not the kind of person who swallows things people on the internet tell me wholesale and typically when people post their systems online they're looking for feedback and criticism as well as praise. Just trying to help.

I don't see how McCaffrey and McCoy are similar players. Their games are completely different. McCaffrey can't​ handle a true RB carry workload with his frame and lack of strength. In college, you can get by with it.

I agree that McCoy is a poor comp, but would point out that a few guys with similar (or even smaller) builds have gone on to handle sizable workloads in the pros. Charles and CJ2K are the hope for CM owners. Both were faster, but I'm not sure how to value that when we're just talking about a guy holding up. He'll be in very rare company--and for that reason--like you--I question his chances of being a lead back--but it has been done.

[brewster]

This is great info DD! I was between Foreman and Kamara but I'm pretty sure I'm going to go Foreman now with this being used as the 'tie-breaker'! Thanks again!!

[maxhyde]

I think the other thing to note here is how you personally treat RB's. Taking Foreman just means you may have to wait on him which really isn't a problem kinda like with Henry last year. Good player just not going to be a guy you can count on using barring injury.
You can take swings at the Howards etc later in the drafts with less impressive depth charts to battle up (GB/SF/IND/NYG) but I think taking a guy like that you may want to be keeping in mind what your price is because if they get some work early the return may never be better

[pokerface40]

I would like to pile on in thanking DD for his hard work on compiling this report. It allowed Hunt to slip to 2.02 to me when DD took Foreman at 2.01 in our draft, so thanks DD!

[spotxc]

Where is Perine and his slow behind through all of this

[Valhalla]

Where is Perine and his slow behind through all of this

He couldn't keep up with the process...