Yards Per Carry

[GridironGuerilla]

I'd like to bring this up as it occurred to me in another thread on the forum recently. There seems to be a large amount of disdain for the statistic in this community, yet I see it used regularly in argument these forums? I've seen it touched on in other threads, but I wanted to have as larger conversation about it. I'm curious what the opposing views are on it as a yardstick for player value/success?

[nathanq42]

It can be helpful, but factors outside of talent play a huge factor (oline, scheme, usage, stacked boxes, Red Zone, etc), big runs also skew it.

[Plank]

I kind of like success rate over ypc, because success rate kind of gives you the context how successful the RB is, meaning on 3rd down if the back only gets 1 yard, but its one yard he needed for the 1st down, well his ypc isn't lowered, so you can see he was successful in getting the yardage needed .. its an efficiency metric ..

Also helps with long runs, say if a RB takes an advantage of a LB missing his gap, and goes for 75 yards, that is graded as a successful run, but if all his other carries on 1st and 2nd downs are 1, 3, 1, 2, 1 and are all unsuccessful, ypc would still have him at higher ypc, instead of very low success rate .. so the context of how well the back is performing on carry by carry basis is much greater, also will reflect how clutch he is in getting short yardage if you narrow the search for just short yardage situations too ..

If you are box score scouting instead of watching games, it helps to look at the efficiency of the running back to know how well he does, will help predict his future use also ..

ie, a RB with 70% success rate on 1st and 2nd down, will be used a lot more than a RB with a 33% success rate on 1st and 2nd down even if the 2nd RB has a ypc of 5.0

During the broadcast of the Eagles game talked a bit how PHI is using success rate on early downs as part of their philosophy and we are seeing great results with higher efficiency on 3rd down conversions (lower yardage to gain) and a successful run game, they are in the top 5 of rushing teams and arguably not a 'starting' RB, but a collection of Smallwood, Blount, Barner ..

[AussieMate]

I really like the sound of the success rate, would love some stats on that. I try and watch the "every run play" on YouTube before I get excited or annoyed by a players box score.

[Vcize]

Things like broken defense that leads to a big run or short yardage carries that would presumably lower the ypc all average out over time. If we're talking about 10 carries then sure it's an issue, but over hundreds it's a non-issue. I think this came to light a lot this past offseason when a podcaster made the claim that Melvin Gordon's YPC was artificially low because of all of his short yardage carries, but then when I ran the numbers of other backs I found that everyone's YPC was effected fairly similarly by them (Gordon was actually pretty much right in the middle of the pack so horrible podcasting by whomever it was that started that claim).

The bottom line is that it gets a hard time around here because there are times where it doesn't suit a person's argument, so they attack it. If people are using a 3rd down backs YPC against a grinder then sure, that's silly, but most people use it responsibly and used responsibly it seems to have a pretty decent correlation with long-term success, of course with aberrations here and there.

[Plank]

Here is Warren Sharps website, this link is for the box score page, but you can go to offense and rushing, tons of pages and visualizations for the box score hunter:

https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/sharp-box-score.html

[GridironGuerilla]

My experience is that if it helps support their point, they use it. If it doesn't they dismiss it as useless.

[snaps06]

My experience is that if it helps support their point, they use it. If it doesn't they dismiss it as useless.

I feel like this is the situation with so many statistics haha.

[GridironGuerilla]

My experience is that if it helps support their point, they use it. If it doesn't they dismiss it as useless.

I feel like this is the situation with so many statistics haha.

That's fair.

[Phaded]

Much like every other statistic out there - it can be utilized as a factor but should not be the only thing you look at.

YPC is a largely subjective stat that has so many variables that go into it - it simply cannot be used as the end all be all.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

The thing about YPC that confuses people is that even a full 1 year sample size is almost meaningless. Rawls and Hill had great YPC and now they're almost irrelevant. Le'Veon Bell had an awful YPC his 1st year and now he's great. When you start to look at YPC over multiple years though that will paint a different picture. It's very rare that you see a player cling to a bellcow role while laying down a sub ~4 YPC over the course of several seasons. On the flip side, true stud RB's will generally post a good YPC the vast majority of their years. People like to dismiss it b/c yes good players can have bad YPC and bad players can have good YPC in any given game or single season. However, you have to look at the bigger picture not just a small sample size snap shot.

[Plank]

Like our Jamaal Charles, has carried a 5.4 since 2008, that's impressive (a good use of the statistic )

[onetwothree]

Just one piece of the puzzle. Stats can say whatever you want them to.

Learn how to use them in your favor whether to find a potential breakout player or to sell high on someone.

It's an easy stat for people to understand. 20 carries, 100 yards? Cool 5 yards per carry. The box score folks will assume the player had a good game. The person watching the game will see the RB had 2 big runs that accounted for 80 of the yards.

[dynastyninja]

YPC is extremely important in general. If a player has a low YPC their chances of NFL success drop drastically. It is definitely dependent on surroundings, but YPC just means a lot.

[Tsunami]

YPC is a decent (and easy to find) measure of RB talent, but there are other factors. Advanced stats like broken tackles and yards after contact sometimes show a different story. A player like Melvin Gordon who has a 3.7 career YPC can still be a top fantasy RB, but that is the exception. It's not uncommon for players who have a high YPC on one team to struggle on another, which means as a statistic it is very situational. Where I think it is really valid is comparing players on the same team to each other.

For example, DeMarco Murray had 4.7 YPC in Dallas in 2014, 3.6 YPC in Philly in 2015, and 4.4 YPC in Tennessee in 2016. I don't think he suddenly got worse that year on the Eagles and then suddenly got better again, and I don't believe he was injured. Ryan Mathews had 5.1 YPC that year on the same team, and Sproles had 3.8 YPC, so I'm not sure you can entirely blame the offense either. So far this season Murray has 4.6 YPC compared to Henry's 5.1. I don't think this means they are both better than Gurley or Gordon, but I do think it means that Henry is more effective than Murray right now with this small sample size, and Mathews was more effective than Murray in 2015.

Another limitation is the type of defense. A 3rd down back typically gets carries against a pass defense, which will artificially raise their YPC, while a goal-line back who scores a 1 yard TD only gets 1 yard for that successful run. Some websites break this down if you look hard enough, so you can find out that C.J. Anderson is getting outplayed by Charles on base or passing downs but not short yardage situations.