munde53

Nick Chubb 2019 Outlook

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, K197040 said:

 

Not to mention that Chubb had 3 carries that combined for 200 yards and 3 TD.   I"m not saying he's bad but it does significantly skew his numbers.    

Skewed #s = taking away a rb’s 3 best carries for comparison

...when you didn’t do the same for the other rbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, psygolf said:

Skewed #s = taking away a rb’s 3 best carries for comparison

...when you didn’t do the same for the other rbs.

 

 

I think the point is that it skews the YPC numbers which is the problem with using the metric for coomparison without context. 10 carries of 100 yds gives you a ypc of 10 so if you don't  dig into it you are simply using a stat without context when comparing rb's 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chubb was also one of the most elusive RB's in 2018. And one of the highest graded by PFF. YPC isn't always a great metric, but it is a good enough metric when a number of carries threshold has been achieved. Chubb wasn't a change of pace player with a high YPC. He was the lead back with a healthy YPC. In addition to everything else he did well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dashoe said:

 

 

I think the point is that it skews the YPC numbers which is the problem with using the metric for coomparison without context. 10 carries of 100 yds gives you a ypc of 10 so if you don't  dig into it you are simply using a stat without context when comparing rb's 

When you have almost 200 carries...it’s idiotic to point at those 3 carries, when you do not do the same from those you are comparing him to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, psygolf said:

When you have almost 200 carries...it’s idiotic to point at those 3 carries, when you do not do the same from those you are comparing him to.

 

Which is why quoting ypc without context is a useless metric. You have to frame it properly.

Removing high and low values by defining them a outliers is  not uncommon  say if you want a trimmed mean or you could definine the standard deviation of your data set

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dashoe said:

 

Which is why quoting ypc without context is a useless metric. You have to frame it properly.

Removing high and low values by defining them a outliers is  not uncommon  say if you want a trimmed mean or you could definine the standard deviation of your data set

The only qualifier ypc needs for comparison is the whether the rb received starter-level carries.

5.2 for any starting rb is studly...especially if it’s a Brown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, K197040 said:

 

Not to mention that Chubb had 3 carries that combined for 200 yards and 3 TD.   I"m not saying he's bad but it does significantly skew his numbers.    

 

Lol, gotta love the 'if you take away these big runs his numbers would be lower' guys.  We don't penalize players for making big plays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, dashoe said:

FYI. . ypc is a flawed metric alone without context .. breida, kerryon,aaron jones,lindsay,gus edwards, ekeler had higher or equal ypc, so are you going to take any of them ahead of chubb and he was like #17 in yds from scrimmage

 

kamara rookie season= stud

hunt rookie season = stud

saquon rookie season= stud

 

So I stand by the view he had a decent year as a rookie but he wasnt a stud as you stated. 

 

 

Your examples don't support the silly argument you're making.  Chubb had more carries than all the guys on your list, with the exception of Lindsay who he tied with 192.

Edited by kdko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even sure what we’re discussing in this thread at the moment - but if anyone’s claiming that Chubb was anything other than fantastic, they shouldn’t be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kdko said:

 

Your examples don't support the silly argument you're making.  Chubb had more carries than all the guys on your list, with the exception of Lindsay who he tied with 192.

 

 

That was the point dude you stated his YPC like it measures that he is stud and highly effective runner;  YPC alone is a metric that doesnt tell you much so use metrics that tell you how effective he is as a runner and allow for better comparisons to his peers. You also dont need to have an equal number of carries to make comparisons you need a minimum number to be statistically significant which in this case is 100 carries.

Chubb:

DYAR = 80 #18

DVOA = 1%  #24

50% success rate rank #19

None of those make him a STUD

 

kerryon:

DYAR= 124 #14

DVOA= 17% #5

53% Success rate #12

 

Lindsay for a comp

DYAR = 201 #6

DVOA= 17%  #6

49% success rate # 22

 

Lindsay and kerryon  are much more STUDs than Chubb if you consider Chubb a stud but I dont  tag a player a stud just because I like him.

and for more context here is

Gurley:

DYAR= 367  #1

DVOA = 24%  #1

57% success rate #4

 

Again Chubb had a decent rookie year but he wasnt a STUD

 

DYAR, or Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement. This gives the value of the performance on plays where this RB carried/caught the ball compared to replacement level, adjusted for situation and opponent and then translated into yardage. 

DVOA, or Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. This number represents value, per play, over an average running back in the same game situations. The more positive the DVOA rating, the better the player's performance. Negative DVOA represents below-average offense.

Success Rate. This number represents the player's consistency, measured by successful running plays (the definition of success being different based on down and distance) divided by total running plays. A player with higher DVOA and a low success rate mixes long runs with downs getting stuffed at the line of scrimmage. A player with lower DVOA and a high success rate generally gets the yards needed, but doesn't often get more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BMcP said:

Not even sure what we’re discussing in this thread at the moment - but if anyone’s claiming that Chubb was anything other than fantastic, they shouldn’t be.

 

 We are discussing the uselessness of quoting YPC and applying it to chubb to give him STUD status :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the only metric to support your argument he isn't a stud is the one you cherry-pick? There are a bunch of metrics out there that you are casually ignoring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, devaster said:

So the only metric to support your argument he isn't a stud is the one you cherry-pick? There are a bunch of metrics out there that you are casually ignoring.

 

I didnt cherry pick anything. I provided significantly better metrics that analyze rb performance than YPC. 

Now if you can tell me WHY YPC is  a better metric  then I am all ears however I am quite confident you will not provide a compelling argument supporting YPC if any at all.

It is my opinion that Chubb was not a stud in his rookie campaign so if you have a different opinion so be it.

I love how you guys are reacting as if i said he sucked when I only pointed out the stats show he wasnt a stud last season :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are all debating one individual’s opinion of how one inherently subjective term should be defined?

Very well, carry on, I’ll see myself out-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dashoe said:

 

I didnt cherry pick anything. I provided significantly better metrics that analyze rb performance than YPC. 

Now if you can tell me WHY YPC is  a better metric  then I am all ears however I am quite confident you will not provide a compelling argument supporting YPC if any at all.

It is my opinion that Chubb was not a stud in his rookie campaign so if you have a different opinion so be it.

I love how you guys are reacting as if i said he sucked when I only pointed out the stats show he wasnt a stud last season :lol:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-browns-nick-chubb-on-pace-for-historic-rookie-campaign

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-signature-stat-spotlight-running-backs

You cite Football Outsiders. I'll cite PFF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, devaster said:

 

Pff is another fine source of metrics and yet. .  . I didnt see any use of YPC 

FO and PFF make their money selling ADVANCED METRICS. YPC is not an advanced metric. 

I told you that you couldnt provide a compelling argument supporting YPC  . . .:lol:

Thanks for providing links which support my point.

So now that we have that settled we can agree that you think Chubb had a stud rookie year and I do not.

We can also agree that Chubb is a talented rb which I never disputed.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dashoe said:

 

Pff is another fine source of metrics and yet. .  . I didnt see any use of YPC 

FO and PFF make their money selling ADVANCED METRICS. YPC is not an advanced metric. 

I told you that you couldnt provide a compelling argument supporting YPC  . . .:lol:

Thanks for providing links which support my point.

So now that we have that settled we can agree that you think Chubb had a stud rookie year and I do not.

We can also agree that Chubb is a talented rb which I never disputed.

 

 

 

You were the one that decided to hone in on YPC alone and ignore the rest of the metrics. In the initial post refuting your argument that he wasn't a stud his yards, TD's, YPC, and games started were all mentioned. All of those numbers were very good, stud-like, if extrapolated to a full season started.

Then you decided to cherry-pick FO's metrics to back up your argument against YPC instead of the rest of the numbers. I provided some counter points to that.

Even ignoring the rest of his stats and focusing only on YPC, YPC is a good metric in determining a RB's effectiveness when they reach a certain threshold of carries as a lead back. Yes, then you need to dig into advanced metrics to determine whether it was because of the OLine and rest of the offense, the defenses faced, or the RB himself. Or a combination.

YPC gets inflated with long runs, because most runs are no gain or 2-3 yard chunks. If a RB wasn't breaking off some big runs a YPC never gets above 3 or 4. Sure, if could have been due to the OLine, but Chubb was making plays on his own.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, devaster said:

All of those numbers were very good, stud-like, if extrapolated to a full season started.

 

And this was my original point of contention

"IF" extrapolated doesnt make him a stud in his rookie season 

 

"IF EXTRAPOLATED"  is the LAZIEST form of analysis and forecasting in the fantasy world. 

Most players would be a stud IF EXTRAPOLATED

 

 and here is the rub you even use the term STUD-LIKE which  means Not equal to a  STUD

So why are you taking issue with my view that his rookie season was not studly when you actually use the term STUD-LIKE meaning NOT A STUD

Come on dude you're twisting in your own arguments :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twisting my own arguments? Chubb has proven enough to me to be a stud RB going forward. At least without Hunt there. He was a rookie and didn't start every game or get a full workload. But extrapolate his numbers when he did receiver a full workload and he was a stud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, devaster said:

Twisting my own arguments? Chubb has proven enough to me to be a stud RB going forward. At least without Hunt there. He was a rookie and didn't start every game or get a full workload. But extrapolate his numbers when he did receiver a full workload and he was a stud.

 

I don't do extrapolations, they are useless

i agree he can be a stud next season.

I just don't agree he was a stud his rookie season. As per your term  he was "stud-like". :lol:

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this works as a compromise here so we can move on: “He played as one would expect a stud to play while regularly playing.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chubb was the #7 RB in standard weeks 7-16 (he began starting week 7), and #6 RB in PPR over the same stretch. That doesn't include his 100 yard 2 TD game on minimal carries. He outscored Lindsay, Mixon, Aaron Jones, and a bunch of other RB's in that stretch.

He was a stud.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, devaster said:

. All of those numbers were very good, stud-like, if extrapolated to a full season started.

 

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, devaster said:

He was a stud.

 

 

Make up your mind dude. . .:lol:

According to one post if you extrapolate his numbers for a full season he is STUD-LIKE which means even with the extrapolation you want to add he still wouldnt be a stud.

and in the other post you say he is a stud.

 

I'll let you figure out WHAT you are debating aside from simply debating against me. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dashoe said:

 

 

Make up your mind dude. . .:lol:

According to one post if you extrapolate his numbers for a full season he is STUD-LIKE which means even with the extrapolation you want to add he still wouldnt be a stud.

and in the other post you say he is a stud.

 

I'll let you figure out WHAT you are debating aside from simply debating against me. :lol:

Back-pedaling... I've maintained my stance the entire discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...