Rb->Team Efficiency
The whole debate surrounding the effectiveness and use of Chris Johnson this last weekend got me pretty annoyed, to the point where I decided to crunch some numbers to try to determine which RBs best contributed to their teams offensive production, and which were the worst. Johnson and his peers after the jump.
Johnson was the 15th most used back relative to their team plays, touching the ball for 30.61% of the Titans' plays. The most used back was Gore for the 49ers, touching the ball a whopping 48.08% of plays. Other notables (from a contractual perspective), Peterson (Vikings) touched at 41.86%, Forte (Bears) touched at 32.81%, Williams (panthers) touched 19.12%, and Jones-Drew (Jaguars) touched at 32.88%. Johnson being in the middle of the road is likely not ideal, but he wasn't exactly grossly under-utilized given the performance of the rest of the team.
Johnson had the 26th best yardage as a function of team yardage, contributing 16.78% of the total effort. The top in this category was Peterson, contributing 55.61% of the Vikings offense. Of the other players above, Forte contributed 41.91%, Gore gave 37.32%, Jones-Drew was responsible for 30.03%, and Williams trailed the entire pack with 7.55% of total offensive contribution.
So the efficiency rating I generated out of this is Yard%/Touch%, which is essentially a ratio. At 1, you are contributing to the team effort on offense at the exact same rate as the rest of your teammates. Above 1, you are pulling the cart. Below 1, and you're weighing everyone else down. I'll have to do some crunching to determine how far away from 1 is your performance statistically good or bad, but my hunch is that anything below .8 is bad, and anything above 1.2 is good. 32 data points probably isn't great to construct a good benchmark standard deviation.
I honestly expected Johnson to be last in this category. Turns out he was 29th, coming in at .55. The top dog was Turner (Falcons), with a 1.84. Peterson was 1.33, Forte 1.28, Gore was .78, and Williams was an amazingly bad .39.
So to conclude, 15 touches for Johnson is worrisome, but compared to the number of plays (49), and the performance of the rest of the team, it doesn't look like Johnson was getting it done, which I think we can all agree on. I was especially surprised that Johnson was middle of the pack on touches given the low number, but it appears that many more players did more damage with a smaller percentage of the offensive pie. Hopefully next week will be a little more outstanding.
If there is enough demand, I'll put the worksheet up on Google Docs. I'll most certainly trace week 2 in relief, and maybe the rest of the season if people are interested.
12 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I Went Ahead and Calculated Standard Deviation
… to at least see where the outliers would fall, even though the 32 point sample size is kinda small. Turns out it’s right around .32, which means that ratings above 1.32 could safely be considered well above average, and ratings below .68 would be way below the curve.
Given the above, it’s fairly safe to say that Johnson’s performance was well below average. But we know this.
Keep doing this, and maybe put a note about the back the titans are going to be facing next week.
I’d like to see where Ray Rice was on this list.
by Titans_Firefighter on Sep 14, 2011 6:53 PM CDT reply actions
You mean the Back of R.R. that our Defense will be Following all game!
THROW THE BALL TO CJ!
& only Run the BALL when it’s Short to obtain a first down. We have no FB, so we shouldn’t be Running the ball at all unless the Defense forces us to!
Where DOES BUD Find our Coordinators?!?!?!?!?!
watching the plays they call makes me want to take a hammer to my brain…
by titanwarrior1 on Sep 15, 2011 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions
I'll dig out Ray Rice Tonight...
I seem to remember that his performance was mediocre, but I might be wrong. Nevertheless, shining the spotlight on the opposing RB sounds like a fun idea and another good reason to keep tracking it throughout the season. It also means I need to figure out how to best aggregate weekly results.
And re: FBs, I don’t mean for these numbers to necessarily be an island on the RB. I mean, it’s obvious that a number of team related factors contribute to RB performance: line play, blocking, opposing scheme, environmental conditions. The original intent was to highlight that the number of touches as a scalar isn’t necessarily a good measure of how involved CJ was in the offense. As the numbers showed, he was directly involved in 30% of the plays, which was pretty close to the median among the feature backs on Sunday. For all we know, that # was predetermined by the coaching staff based on his lack of reps, but we obviously don’t have that knowledge. What’s more important to me is that he makes the most of the opportunities given, and in that regard, he definitely didn’t.
I would be shocked if CJ’s efficiency number dips below .55 for the rest of the season, as both he and the offense gets settled. But if it continues to flounder in the rarefied air of the well below average, it speaks volumes to some sort of serious problem with our production at RB. From there, I think you have to separate the analysis from the numbers and start looking at the behaviors on tape.
I think Rice had a good % of his teams yards.
he had 107 on the ground on 19 carries and 42 yards receiving on 4 catches.
by Titans_Firefighter on Sep 15, 2011 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Just Calculated by Hand Rice...
His efficiency number was .97, which means he was slightly less efficient than the Baltimore offense as a whole, but not overly so, which is what I’d mean by mediocre. That said, there were far more results under 1 than above 1, so this may very well be a top10 efficient performance on the day. I’ll be able to supply his exact ranking tonight.
Well that is a top 3 day in Fantasy football last week.
by Titans_Firefighter on Sep 15, 2011 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Rice had 2 TDs on the day...
Fantasy skews towards touchdowns, which aren’t part of this analysis at all, much as this analysis wasn’t really motivated by Fantasy concerns and won’t likely factor them into account.
The point isn’t to say RB X doesn’t contribute. As paltry as CJ’s numbers were, he still contributed. The point is to determine whether or not the RB was the driving force behind the offense. CJ’s numbers suggest that he wasn’t. Rice’s numbers suggest that he performed on par with the rest of the offense, which dropped a large number of points on the Steelers in part due to the massive number of turnovers
I am toying with a couple of ideas though. One is that I’ll definitely be tracking opponents, to see how deeply matchups correlate. The other idea is to figure out a way to introduce fairness, without having to get into game charting. Turner’s (13) performance was over a smaller number of touches than Gore’s (25) for example. How much should we reward Turner for being lucky with a big play in one of his few touches? How much should we penalize Gore for eating up a lot of garbage time carries which impacted his YPT? I have an idea on how to address this using median and mean touches, but I want to play with it before talking about the impact on the numbers.
So In Followup
Rice was 12th based on the above score for Week 1.
I’m still playing with a factor which is product of Yards% and Touch%, which I’m currently calling Dominance, since it appears to be an accurate portrayal of how the RB was used in the game. However, I’m having trouble figuring the best way to meld efficiency and dominance. Hopefully I’ll have more on that tomorrow.

by 































