Curious how you guys view this. When I see/hear someone reference a player has X number of catches, that feels like a numerator to me.
With other positions we don't reference that as a success on its own. For example you don't often hear the number of a carries a running back had, or the number of completions a quarterback had as evidence of how great they are.
It's usually the yards or YPC for a running back, and the completion percentage or YPA for a QB.
Now of course if a player earns enough targets to have big time reception numbers, chances are he's a really good player and productive. But there are times when a guy is just a compiler and isn't doing a ton with all those opportunities.
It's just a little quirky, but wondering what you guys think.
RBs are measured in ypc.
RBs are measured in ypc.
ypc in a single season is a noisy stat and easily warped by a few big runs against porous defenses.
Take Evan Engram for example, 114 catches this year, but for 963 yards. Would you consider that a great accomplishment?
Quote:
Because they get open. You don’t see too many average players getting 100 catches. QBs look to get the ball in their play makers hands. Catching 100 balls is an accomplishment.
RBs are measured in ypc.
ypc in a single season is a noisy stat and easily warped by a few big runs against porous defenses.
This simply isn't true unless the number of carries is small. Obviously every stat is a mix of numbers near the mean and outliers. But YPC is probably less like that than almost any other stat because the denominator is usually quite large. It also tends to include a much higher percentage of relevant plays - i.e. all the times a receiver doesn't get open or gets open but does not get the ball are not measured.
volume stats give you raw production over a period of time - which may be most important end of day in a "you are what your record is" way. if you run an ecommerce website that gets the most traffic in it's category that's generally a good start. but if the type of traffic sucks or your conversion rates suck or you dont know how to monetize, the business may still suck despite volume.
efficiency stats are key to evaluating raw production. what % of traffic actually buys things? how much per sale? what are the most popular items?
good products can do poorly bc they are in bad environments,
bad products can do well bc they are in good environments,
the 3rd bucket is now motion tracking data and that helps explain both. i.e. is a player is just moving faster than other players? accelerating quicker in/out of breaks? catching balls others drop? it's like combine data except applied real world with pads on, so its better.
players who check all 3 boxes are generally a tyreek hill or justin jefferson or jamarr chase. so most of the time we are evaluating players with holes somewhere on the resume. looking for underrated assets with good efficiency to find a diamond in the rough like puka nacua.
Quote:
Because they get open. You don’t see too many average players getting 100 catches. QBs look to get the ball in their play makers hands. Catching 100 balls is an accomplishment.
Take Evan Engram for example, 114 catches this year, but for 963 yards. Would you consider that a great accomplishment?
For a TE this is a very good season. For a WR I want more YPR.
We can take the eCom example and draw the line at the funnel (all of your other points are good, but they are more why than what analysis).
If the end goal is revenue (yards), we can look at it as:
Sessions (targets) * Conversion Rate (catch rate) * Average Order Value (yards per reception) = Revenue (yards)
In the eCom businesses I've ran, the least contemplated number is raw conversions. That number on its own tells you the least information about your business, and in this analogy that would be receptions.
Take Evan Engram for example, 114 catches this year, but for 963 yards. Would you consider that a great accomplishment?
For a TE this is a very good season. For a WR I want more YPR.
Why should the productivity be graded on a curve for the TE?
We can take the eCom example and draw the line at the funnel (all of your other points are good, but they are more why than what analysis).
If the end goal is revenue (yards), we can look at it as:
Sessions (targets) * Conversion Rate (catch rate) * Average Order Value (yards per reception) = Revenue (yards)
In the eCom businesses I've ran, the least contemplated number is raw conversions. That number on its own tells you the least information about your business, and in this analogy that would be receptions.
maybe but it always depends on goals and perspective. if a PE came knocking to buy your ecom business, and you had a record raw conversion year that drove record revenues, those are the #s you're talking about. and while they will also look under the hood, the revenue number is what matters most in that scenario.
i agree with you that for the WR position revenue is yards. imo YPG for a WR is the most predictive WR stat of quality/success. more receptions is generally going to = more yards (and in your engram example, that tracks, he didnt just have his most receptions but also his most yards).
But if the way I got there is a low CVR and a lower than benchmark AOV, that's going on my risks slide. No one has ever led with a raw number of transactions in anything other than a seed round. That's a product market fit metric, not a financial success metric.
It's a really good analogy for pass catchers. The reception/transaction number shows it's a viable outcome, but doesn't necessarily indicate a successful outcome.
The reception/transaction number is only good if it comes at a high percentage of the sessions/target number, and really only successful if it comes at a good YPC/AOV.
In pure football terms a high reception number isn't impressive if it comes off a disproportionately high number of targets, and doesn't generate a lot of yards.
But if the way I got there is a low CVR and a lower than benchmark AOV, that's going on my risks slide. No one has ever led with a raw number of transactions in anything other than a seed round. That's a product market fit metric, not a financial success metric.
It's a really good analogy for pass catchers. The reception/transaction number shows it's a viable outcome, but doesn't necessarily indicate a successful outcome.
The reception/transaction number is only good if it comes at a high percentage of the sessions/target number, and really only successful if it comes at a good YPC/AOV.
In pure football terms a high reception number isn't impressive if it comes off a disproportionately high number of targets, and doesn't generate a lot of yards.
ok but apply your engram example.
80% catch rate (best of career), one of his best drop rates, 2nd best success rate (53%) of his career, and tied his career yards/target (6.7 2023, 6.8 career). he scaled his volume efficiently, his only minor regression was y/r in part bc of a slightly lower adot and yac/r.
but one could easily make a case it was not only the most productive year of his career but also most efficient. his prior 3 most explosive years (y/r) which were his first 3 years as a nyg he had much lower success rates and catch rates. he was more of a boom/bust player.
point being what you initially reacted to as a player as a player with stats (rec) inflated by targets was under the hood actually a player producing enough to deserve those extra targets. i think it is rare that players can achieve a great topline only because they get heavy targets. teams arent generally going to give heavy targets to inefficient players.
adam thielen this year is probably your better example than engram, he had a big year mostly thanks to being the tallest midget in carolina, but when you look at his efficiency metrics they were still pretty good even if they werent as good as his prime years and his explosiveness is mostly gone.
Tremendous contribution per normal on your part.
I'll bring it back to a point you've made a number of times -- chunk plays are a great goal for a player. The obvious reason being efficiency -- biggest bang on fewer tries.
What's a better outcome 1 catch for 20, or 2 for 10? Clearly the former because over two plays you have a better opportunity to gain more yards.
Just sticking with Engram. He had 114 catches. Was his season closer to St. Brown who had 119 or to Rashee Rice who had 79? I think we'd both agree his season isn't in the same galaxy as St. Brown.
I think the number of receptions is the least interesting in the equation that gets you from targets to yards.
I'll bring it back to a point you've made a number of times -- chunk plays are a great goal for a player. The obvious reason being efficiency -- biggest bang on fewer tries.
What's a better outcome 1 catch for 20, or 2 for 10? Clearly the former because over two plays you have a better opportunity to gain more yards.
Just sticking with Engram. He had 114 catches. Was his season closer to St. Brown who had 119 or to Rashee Rice who had 79? I think we'd both agree his season isn't in the same galaxy as St. Brown.
I think the number of receptions is the least interesting in the equation that gets you from targets to yards.
the choice of 1x20 yards or 2x10 yards is myopic. it's kind of like saying do you want to buy a stock that gives you a 10x return or a 20x return?
there were 18 players in the NFL with 17 receptions 20+ (1 per game). those are your "true #1's" and what makes their stats all the more impressive is they produce those chunk plays with more attention than the receivers behind them. thats why if they are on 2nd contracts they cost $20m+ per year, if you trade for them they cost a 1st round pick+, if you draft them it's day 1 or 2. just eyeballing it puka is the only day 3 i see on the list. the majority are blue chip assets that cost a premium. those are most of your 1k yard receivers too, there are about 30 of those so there are about a doze who get to 1k yards but with fewer big plays.
12 of those 18 had 20+ plays over 20 yards.
7 of them had 25+ plays over 20 yards (hill had the most with 29).
so only half of the teams in the league are lucky enough to have a receiver that produces 1 20+ player game, and a half dozen teams are lucky enough to have someone close to producing 2 of those plays per game despite being circled by every DC that faces them ahead of the game.
then there are bunch of players, like slayton who had 11 this year and 12 last year, who are #2's.
engram btw had 9 last year and 10 this year. so he's in that group even though he's a TE who got more volume closer to LOS.
this is all good context for why MH Jr, Nabers, and Odunze are going to be popular names in the top 6. They are all among the most big plays in their college careers with Jamarr Chase I think being one of the only guys of recent drafts with more big plays in a single season. All 3 of them have a chance at putting their new teams in the lucky half dozen.
I think it's pretty evident then, when judging a pass catcher just stating the number of catches is at best incomplete and at worst not very useful.
The most useful numbers are how much did he gain on his targets, and how many first downs and touchdowns did he gain on those targets.
I think it's pretty evident then, when judging a pass catcher just stating the number of catches is at best incomplete and at worst not very useful.
The most useful numbers are how much did he gain on his targets, and how many first downs and touchdowns did he gain on those targets.
no id say reread my initial post. raw numbers are useful and no more incomplete than any other number by themselves. there were only 12 receivers (or TEs) over 100 receptions and all 12 had 963 yards or more (the 11 WRs had more than 1k yards, engram was the lone TE). thielen was the only WR under 1150 yards.
kelce was the only TE with more yards than engram by 19, so if yards are your key input as i said before the receptions shouldnt mask what was a very good season for engram across the board.
i think 90+ receptions is a more valuable statistic than tds and probably also more valuable than y/c or y/t. kelce had 93 rec and only 5 tds. garrett wilson had 95 and just 3 tds. brandin cooks and romeo doubs had 8 tds each and probably look better in efficiency metrics but only because they dont get nearly the volume or attention high volume players generally get.
Player A and Player B both gain 1000 yards.
Player A has 100 targets, 60 catches, 16.7 YPC, 10 YPT
Player B has 120 targets, 72 catches, 13.9 YPC, 8.3 YPT
What player had a better season?
Player A and Player B both gain 1000 yards.
Player A has 100 targets, 60 catches, 16.7 YPC, 10 YPT
Player B has 120 targets, 72 catches, 13.9 YPC, 8.3 YPT
What player had a better season?
difference without distinction. i dont see a meaningful difference in those numbers so id judge by whichever of those 2 differentiated in other ways first downs, tds, blocked better, faced the harder situation, etc.
player b is basically brandin cooks average season and player a is gabe davis.
Quote:
Because they get open. You don’t see too many average players getting 100 catches. QBs look to get the ball in their play makers hands. Catching 100 balls is an accomplishment.
Take Evan Engram for example, 114 catches this year, but for 963 yards. Would you consider that a great accomplishment?
The fact he caught the ball... yes a great accomplishment!
OK cool, so at a minimum it seems having more catches isn't the thing that would make this hypothetical season "better."
So now consider the conventional perception of running the ball.
Player and A and B both gain 1000 rush yards.
Player A carries the ball 250 times, 4.0 YPC, for 1000 yards.
Player B carries the ball 300 times, 3.3 YPC, for 1000 yards.
What season is better?
Quote:
difference without distinction. i dont see a meaningful difference in those numbers so id judge by whichever of those 2 differentiated in other ways first downs, tds, blocked better, faced the harder situation, etc
OK cool, so at a minimum it seems having more catches isn't the thing that would make this hypothetical season "better."
So now consider the conventional perception of running the ball.
Player and A and B both gain 1000 rush yards.
Player A carries the ball 250 times, 4.0 YPC, for 1000 yards.
Player B carries the ball 300 times, 3.3 YPC, for 1000 yards.
What season is better?
where did i mention anything about rush attempts? i assume this is an attempt at a false equivalence? false bc the nature of a 'rush' and a 'reception' are different. being able to a) get open and b) catch the ball are key skills for receivers to complete a reception (open score and catch score are 2 of the 3 receiver tracking metrics you often post about). if a running back cant take a handoff (a carry) they are going pro in something other than football.
so the raw number of carries a running back takes are meaningless other than being a denominator on their efficiency (yards per carry), which makes a higher number worse if the production is the same. the number of catches a receiver makes has meaning because each catch averages more than twice as much production as any run. it is a higher value and higher difficulty event. you seem down a rabbit hole. not sure why im following you down except to state the obvious that receptions have meaning?
christian : 9:57 am
Curious how you guys view this. When I see/hear someone reference a player has X number of catches, that feels like a numerator to me.
With other positions we don't reference that as a success on its own. For example you don't often hear the number of a carries a running back had, or the number of completions a quarterback had as evidence of how great they are.
It's usually the yards or YPC for a running back, and the completion percentage or YPA for a QB.
Now of course if a player earns enough targets to have big time reception numbers, chances are he's a really good player and productive. But there are times when a guy is just a compiler and isn't doing a ton with all those opportunities.
It's just a little quirky, but wondering what you guys think.
So then what about a completion? We don't often speak of a quarterback's success in terms of the number of completions. That's not just an event, that's a successful event.
No one is heaping praise saying "That Dak Prescott completed 410 passes this year."
Hell, I bet I couldn't have guessed with 5 tries who led the league in completions if I hadn't have looked it up.
So then what about a completion? We don't often speak of a quarterback's success in terms of the number of completions. That's not just an event, that's a successful event.
No one is heaping praise saying "That Dak Prescott completed 410 passes this year."
Hell, I bet I couldn't have guessed with 5 tries who led the league in completions if I hadn't have looked it up.
youre right i did miss that part of your post - i actually do also value completion% (id actually say it's more important judging a qb than y/a). i think it's generally the best quick proxy for accuracy. i think that's a reason why im higher on bo nix and mccarthy than many others (nix was #1 in ncaa in comp 77% and 85% adjusted, mccarthy 4th best at 72% and 80% adjusted).
individual completions are so different in skill because a screen pass is very different difficulty from a pass downfield and someone like nix benefitted bc of how many were passes at LOS so in that case i think it's fair to discount somewhat. nix got an extra 700 yards and 7 tds on his resume just from passes behind LOS (which are basically handoffs).
I think intuitively fans measure quarterbacks on the percentage of times they get it right (complete the pass), and then on the impact of the aggregate measured in total yards.
We don't hear success for a quarterback framed as he completed 25 passes. Is 25 good? Only if we know the denominator and what the outcome in yards was.
Maybe there are outliers where a guy has a low completion percentage but racks up the yards. But the degree of luck or difficulty factor makes that low odds.
That's why I find it a little incomplete when a pass catcher is praised for the amount of catches. Is that number good? Only if we know how many times it was thrown to him and how many yards he gained.
This was an observation I had in the thread BBI Eric posted about Barkley having 91 catches his rookie year yesterday.
Fabulous contribution per normal Matlock.
Quote:
We all know what (or who) this all about…
Fabulous contribution per normal Matlock.
How was his birthday party last week? What did you get him? Anything good?
WRs are generally covered at the start of the play and they aren't going to get the ball if they can't get open. So catches is kind of a proxy of a WR ability to get open. YPC to me categorizes the type of WR, possession vs explosive for instance.
A high YPC guy but low catch guy may not be able to run all the routes where a high catch guy you can pretty much say can run all the routes. I don't think you see a lot of guys with 100+ catches who are one dimensional route runners.
There are some superb rushing games in there. As a receiver, not as many.
Barkley was 17th among running backs in yards per reception in 2018. 125th overall amongst all positions.
Passing the ball to Barkley was usually not a great play in 2018. That's the objective observation.
That's why I find it a little incomplete when a pass catcher is praised for the amount of catches. Is that number good? Only if we know how many times it was thrown to him and how many yards he gained.
that's where we disagree. if you tell me a guy was in the top 10% of receptions (let's say 90+) in a season it's almost definitely because he was a top 10% player. in the barkley example he was a top 10 player at a different position no different than any of the other rbs who have reached that threshold (ekeler and cmc?) in the last several years.
if you tell me a player caught 50-60 balls it doesnt mean much because a lot of guys do that.
if you quote any rate stat y/route run or y/attempt (any position) that is meaningless unless you know the sample size relative to others. without setting a minimum qualifier, the nfl's leader in yards per route run last year was steven sims at 4.17. david moore of the bucs is 10th best. bc they had less than 10 targets. garrett wilson ranks 63rd in yrr and 13th in receptions. which do you think is more reflective of reality? im not arguing against y/rr btw, just for receptions.
this reminds me of baseball arguments where people say 'hitting .300 doesn't matter if it's a singles hitter' which i also disagree with. hitting .300 means the player is a good hitter. catching a lot of balls means the player is a good receiver.
There are some superb rushing games in there. As a receiver, not as many.
Barkley was 17th among running backs in yards per reception in 2018. 125th overall amongst all positions.
Passing the ball to Barkley was usually not a great play in 2018. That's the objective observation.
not sure if you are misunderstanding how stats work or cherry picking, but either a good example for the purposes of this thread.
in 2018 barkley had 2 receptions of 40+ yards and 5 receptions of 20+. i think he was 2nd on the nyg in both to only obj (who had 3x of 40+, and 17x 20+). on top of the big plays he got a high volume of receptions, which for rate stats masks some of that big play production but on the whole he was the most productive receiving rb that season. sort of like how ceedee lamb only averaged 13 ypc this year even though he was one of the most explosive WRs in football, that's because he had 135 receptions so his big plays were minimized statistically relative to players who had 20-30 fewer receptions who had a similar or in some cases fewer # of big plays.
and even though the volume acts statistically as a "rate penalty" it isn't a negative - 30 of barkley's catches went for first downs in 2018 when there were only about 20 rbs who even had 30+ total catches (not just first downs). his total first downs (30 receiving + 50 rushing) almost tied him with deandre hopkins who led all WRs with 81. this year ceedee lamb similarly had 80 first downs (2nd to tyreek).
now lets add barkleys 2018 receiving production to his production as a RB, which comes from the less risky event of a handoff, 7 rushes over 40 yards and 16 over 20 yards, and his total big play production (21x20+, 9x40+) was on par with a typical tyreek hill season (this year hill had a career year leading all players with 29x and 9x). barkley had actually tied randy moss' rookie record for most tds 40+ yards.
so net/net whether it was hunting big plays or first downs, your objective observation is wrong - getting the ball to barkley however they could in 2018 was a great play. that's why they did it so much and why he had the 2nd most tds of all skill players and why he was every fantasy leagues 1st or 2nd pick in 2019.
since his rookie year barkley has become better between tackles and in pass pro but the big plays have come down from top WR levels to top RB levels. in 14 games he had 11 plays 20+ this year and 1 over 40. last year in 16 games he had 11 and 3.
the added polish is nice but any nfl team would take the more explosive big play 2018 version. and wouldn't you know it the y/r between the 2018 version (7.9) and this year's (6.8) doesn't really show much difference.