It is being used to compare backs in the same system at the same time. It’s not a perfect stat, even in that context, but anyone that understands it’s limitations can still use it meaningfully. Every stat has limitations, some are better than others, but YPC is by no means useless. Extend it to it’s theoretical limits: 2 backs share carries in a backfield. They each have 50 carries. One runs for 50 ypc, the other -10 ypc. In this instance ypc tells 100% enough of the story between these two backs for us to make perfectly accurate assumptions about which was better in a general sense at running the ball. In another scenario one back may gain 3.3 ypc while the other gains 4.9 ypc. In that case ypc doesn’t show everything meaningful between the two backs performance like in the first case, and other stats could be very helpful, but it sure as heck shows enough to inform any of us a whole lot about the situation and the overwhelming likelihood of which back was better.Huh wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:26 pmI’m a Damien truther but I agree. Ypc should not even be mentioned when talking about a rb. It should be the chiefs ran for 5.2 yards per carry, not Williams ran for 5.2 yards per carry.Phaded wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:07 pmGood lord - can this community stop using YPC as an argument in favour of players who do not even hit triple digit carries?
It is no secret that you should have a higher YPC with lesser carries and that it lowers when you get more carries, generally.
It rarely works out when they get a larger workload.
So basically, it isn’t a perfect stat, and many others were cited, including many different defense adjusted stats, but ypc is by no means useless or even a bad stat if just viewed in context.