There has been a deluge of articles recently in mainstream sports media about the expendability of top-tier running backs. The position with the shortest average career lifespan and highest rate of injuries predictably doesn't warrant long-term, top-dollar NFL contracts. Add to that the league's philosophical shift to pass-first rules and two-back tandems, and average running back salaries have (deservedly) stagnated.
The journalist slant is pro-player, as it almost always is; virtually all the players are black and the owners white, which coincides with the greater media policy. So, the audience is meant to feel sympathy for the star running backs (while ignoring the windfall for the majority of average running backs, who are claiming more salary and carries for themselves). Most of these articles say pretty much the same thing.
The "musing" that I had today was about the inability of basic stats to convey effectiveness. Consider this paragraph:
What is the plan at running back?
Obviously
Joe Mixon is a part of it, taking a pay cut to stick as the Bengals' primary ball-carrier.
But he's not been the most efficient back of late, averaging fewer than four yards per carry in two of his last three seasons. And with
Samaje Perine gone via free agency, their chief alternatives are
Trayveon Williams and
Chase Brown, who have a combined 47 carries at the
NFL level.
Here's the thing: if a running back nets 3.5 yards per carry every single time, his team will march down the field and score a touchdown every single time. If he was that regular, he could accomplish this on just 2.5 yards per carry. Ten such "successful" carries will tally 25-35 total yards.
Now consider a running back who plops down forward for one single yard nine times in a row. On his tenth carry, he rips off a forty yard gain. He's now
averaging a gaudy 4.9 yards per carry, but his production has resulted in three punts and one long field goal attempt.
Not even the average Joe Sixpack is too dumb to rattle off twenty reasons why each run is different. Each offensive lineman, defensive lineman, linebacker, blocking tight end / receiver, base defense, offensive set, player-specific plays, schemes, and assignments, snap count, down number, game clock, play clock, score, and a hundred more factors figure into each running play's viability.
So, why are we fed slop about "yards per carry" as a measure of efficiency? I admit that I stopped keeping track of all the advanced baseball metrics, but I do assume that they are rooted in some sort of objective truth, however stilted. It's curious that football is stuck on a lower common denominator for something like this. I believe there is some comfort in just believing what you're told, so there won't ever really be an epiphany about 'running back effectiveness' or whatever on the part of the typical fan. As it relates to this forum, the same theme goes for (virtually) every single running back
needing to be black.