PDA

View Full Version : RB Adjusted 40 Numbers


Cicero
02-22-2009, 10:50 PM
Alright, here's how things work.

The formula for the adjusted 40 score is (Weight * 200)/(40 Time^4). The multipliers are as such in the formula to ensure both accuracy as well as simplicity -- the scores that result revolve around a 100-point scale. The average adjusted 40 score of all running backs is 98.5; for all drafted running backs, it's 102.4; for all running backs selected in the first round, it's 112.1. Consider adjusted 40 score to be a sort of speed score -- a higher number is better.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3337822

Using the numbers Scott posted, here are the resullts.

• Cedric Peerman 110.2

• Andre Brown 110.2

• Ian Johnson 107.2

• Javarris Williams 106.9

• Chris Wells 105.9

• Kory Sheets 104.2

• Rashad Jennings 103.2

• Donald Brown 101.5

• Chris Ogbonnaya 98.3

• James Davis 98.2

• Mike Goodson 98.0

• Marlon Lucky 97.3

• Javon Ringer 95.7

• Glen Coffee 95.0

• Knowshon Moreno 94.4

• Anthony Kimble 93.2

• Bernard Scott 92.5

• Shonn Greene 91.5

• Tyrell Sutton 90.2

• Jeremiah Johnson 87.8

• Branden Ore 87.0

• Gartrell Johnson 86.0

• Kahlil Brown 83.3

• Arian Foster NA

• P.J. Hill NA

• LeSean McCoy NA



To help put this in perspective, here are a few guys from the NFL:

Chris Johnson- 123.8

Brandon Jacobs- 123.5

Adrian Peterson-121.2

Steven Jackson- 117.8

Ryan Grant- 117.4

Jonathon Stewart- 116.8

MJD- 112.1

Matt Forte- 111.2

Remember, these are just numbers folks, take what you will from them.

princefielder28
02-22-2009, 10:52 PM
I am a big fan of this stat, get an idea of the player's blend of size and speed

OzTitan
02-22-2009, 11:04 PM
Interesting article. I really wouldn't have guessed 40 times were so significant for a RB with vision and balance etc seeming so much more vital on an actual NFL field.

Oh and hell yeah on Chris Johnson's score :)

....

But a big frown on Chris Henry, who I'm sure must have had a crazy score ar 4.40, and 230lb.

umphrey
02-22-2009, 11:08 PM
Good thread. Shows how crappy this RB class really is. Wells is the only runner I can get a little excited about, but I think he'll be too much of an injury risk to be a bonafide starter in the NFL.

Cicero
02-22-2009, 11:17 PM
Interesting article. I really wouldn't have guessed 40 times were so significant for a RB with vision and balance etc seeming so much more vital on an actual NFL field.

Oh and hell yeah on Chris Johnson's score :)

....

But a big frown on Chris Henry, who I'm sure must have had a crazy score ar 4.40, and 230lb.

Hahaha ouch 122.7 dang. Don't you hate it when you get stuck with the the ones that go against the data?

Good thread. Shows how crappy this RB class really is. Wells is the only runner I can get a little excited about, but I think he'll be too much of an injury risk to be a bonafide starter in the NFL.

Ya, as of right now at least no one is a 1st round RB number wise.

Twinkle Toes
02-22-2009, 11:20 PM
From the standpoint of pure physics, weight adjusted numbers make sense in theory as a predictor of how well a RB should be able to "move a pile". This measure would be great for goal line and short yardage situations except it ignores completely three other components: pad level, leg 'churn' and desire (or 'nose for the endzone')

Taken in the abstract, this is about as useless as any other measure that is taken in the abstract. Which means by itself it is really pretty irrelevant.

AkiliSmith
02-22-2009, 11:20 PM
Ya, as of right now at least no one is a 1st round RB number wise.
Tape > combine numbers

Cicero
02-22-2009, 11:24 PM
Tape > combine numbers

Like I said.

Remember, these are just numbers folks, take what you will from them.

I would still bet that someone is going in round 1.

Texas Homer
02-22-2009, 11:28 PM
I really like Andre Brown and Cedric Peerman.

Twinkle Toes
02-22-2009, 11:29 PM
I would still bet that Moreno is going in round 1.

Andre Brown and Peerman helped themselves today, but both are late 3rd to 4th rounders IMO.

AkiliSmith
02-22-2009, 11:29 PM
I really like Andre Brown and Cedric Peerman.
Peerman has small hands

PossibleCabbage
02-22-2009, 11:37 PM
Hmm... it's interesting the degree to which this bucks the conventional wisdom about this draft. The conventional wisdom is that this draft is very deep at RB, but the numbers suggest that not a single RB is "average first round pick" quality and only seven are "average RB drafted at all" quality.

I suppose this draft will be a good test of the validity of this statistic. If we actually get a number of successful backs out of this draft, then the adjusted 40 times is bunk. If Ian Johnson turns out to be one of the most successful RBs drafted and the class overall is weak, then there might be something to it. At least good theories are testable.

Cicero
02-22-2009, 11:49 PM
Hmm... it's interesting the degree to which this bucks the conventional wisdom about this draft. The conventional wisdom is that this draft is very deep at RB, but the numbers suggest that not a single RB is "average first round pick" quality and only seven are "average RB drafted at all" quality.

I suppose this draft will be a good test of the validity of this statistic. If we actually get a number of successful backs out of this draft, then the adjusted 40 times is bunk. If Ian Johnson turns out to be one of the most successful RBs drafted and the class overall is weak, then there might be something to it. At least good theories are testable.

After everyone's pro day I will make another thread with the pro day numbers and then average the two.

Twinkle Toes
02-22-2009, 11:53 PM
I don't know where the conventional wisdom came from. Many (including myself) concluded early that the strength of this draft in the offensive skill positions was at WR and TE, and that the RB and QB class was relatively weak.

Cicero
02-23-2009, 12:01 AM
Oh, Devin Moore is a 100.0 if anyone was wondering.

shady00
02-23-2009, 12:06 AM
I like Andre Brown and Rashad Jennings to end up being the best backs out of this class. Moreno also but he's on everybody's radar already.

Kurve
02-23-2009, 12:28 AM
I think im doing this wrong ..... so is it (weight x 200 ) divided ( 40 time cubed) is that right?


if thats the case i got

Chris Johnson = 120+ 195lbs 4.24
Darren Mcfadden =119+ 210lbs 4.33
Adrian Peterson = 115+ 217lbs 4.40

got all these numbers from the combine results they had not current weight which may be different.

but that isnt what person starting this thread got so i dunno if i did it right or wrong.

PossibleCabbage
02-23-2009, 12:29 AM
After some thought, and running some data for other RBs whose numbers I can find, ultimately all this is really saying is "It's good to be fast for your size or big for your speed" which is something everybody already knew. It's just a theory that speculates that a specific function of speed and size is the right one.

Ultimately, it's obvious that RBs can be tremendously successful with sub-elite adjusted 40 times (by my math Barry Sanders was 111.3, but he's the best RB I've ever seen play the game, Larry Johnson was around a 101), while you can be a flop with elite adjusted 40 times (Michael Bennett being a 112.48 and Chris Henry a 122.7).

If you just look at specific examples, it looks prescient since it predicts things like "Neither Rashaan Salaam (105) nor Cedric Benson (108) were worthy of especially high picks" which seem prescient, but it also predicts things like "Reggie Bush (119) and Chris Henry (122.7) will be amazing players" which some of us are still waiting for.

Cicero
02-23-2009, 12:40 AM
I think im doing this wrong ..... so is it (weight x 200 ) divided ( 40 time cubed) is that right?


if thats the case i got

Chris Johnson = 120+ 195lbs 4.24
Darren Mcfadden =119+ 210lbs 4.33
Adrian Peterson = 115+ 217lbs 4.40

got all these numbers from the combine results they had not current weight which may be different.

but that isnt what person starting this thread got so i dunno if i did it right or wrong.

Here were the numbers I used for Peterson and Johnson
Johnson: (200 x 200) / 4.24^4 = 123.8
Peterson: (200 x 217) / 4.35^4 = 121.2

CantStopGregJones
02-23-2009, 01:30 AM
It is plain stupidity to compares years because the track was obviously slower this year than years past. The new track is not as fast as the old RCA dome track. Every position so far has come out that way with 1 or 2 exceptions like DHB and Jared Cook. DHB could give Chris Johnson a run for his money on the same track guarentee it.

Kurve
02-23-2009, 01:54 AM
Here were the numbers I used for Peterson and Johnson
Johnson: (200 x 200) / 4.24^4 = 123.8
Peterson: (200 x 217) / 4.35^4 = 121.2

see i thought his official 40 time was 4.40 at the 2007 combine and johnson was 195lbs was chris johnsons official weight at the combine as well but i could be wrong ....


anway cool thread makes it interesting seeing what running backs score

WCH
02-23-2009, 02:03 AM
It is plain stupidity to compares years because the track was obviously slower this year than years past. The new track is not as fast as the old RCA dome track. Every position so far has come out that way with 1 or 2 exceptions like DHB and Jared Cook. DHB could give Chris Johnson a run for his money on the same track guarentee it.

Bingo. This draft is going to be pure hell for those of us who do stats-based draft research and integrate combine times. I haven't taken a closer look yet, but I suspect that this is also going to impact the shuttle runs and the 3-cone. I had to deal with this same thing last year, when the VJ numbers were all about 5 inches off.

If I have time, I'll compute adjustments for these numbers, after the pro days are almost over with, and I'll post them on this board.

WCH
02-23-2009, 02:13 AM
From the standpoint of pure physics, weight adjusted numbers make sense in theory as a predictor of how well a RB should be able to "move a pile". This measure would be great for goal line and short yardage situations except it ignores completely three other components: pad level, leg 'churn' and desire (or 'nose for the endzone')

Taken in the abstract, this is about as useless as any other measure that is taken in the abstract. Which means by itself it is really pretty irrelevant.

I disagree. First of all, this stat gives us a correlation coefficient of .45, despite differences in system, line, lead-blocker, QB, and health. Most social scientists would kill for a correlation this strong. That's impressive when we're dealing with complex social systems.

Second of all, while this is really only a way of calculating size/speed combination, it's an important finding for two reasons: 1) we had no concrete way of truly measuring size/speed combination until this work was published; and 2) it tells us interesting things about speed as it relates to the position -- for instance...

Note that the forty time is raised to the power of four (!) which is to say that this is an "inverse quartic function." In simple terms, that means that even a small increase in speed can make a huge difference. Chris Johnson looks like the posterboy for this, in the sense that he isn't a huge guy, and from a scouting standpoint, he had a lot of flaws. Nevertheless, he runs a 4.2 and was able to dramatically outperform most others who graded out higher.

These scores are far from the entire story, but this is an important tool that should not be ignored.

umphrey
02-23-2009, 02:24 AM
Tape > combine numbers

Do you post this in every thread where someone mentions measurables?

This RB class is really disappointing on tape, on paper, everywhere.

PossibleCabbage
02-23-2009, 03:08 AM
It is plain stupidity to compares years because the track was obviously slower this year than years past. The new track is not as fast as the old RCA dome track. Every position so far has come out that way with 1 or 2 exceptions like DHB and Jared Cook. DHB could give Chris Johnson a run for his money on the same track guarentee it.

I'm just not sure why we would think "it's a slow track" and not "this is not a very fast RB class". Certainly, at least from all of the college football I watched, none of these RBs really stood out as having "superstar potential". Certainly the WR times are reasonable and not out of line with past wide receiver times. The fastest WRs this year ran about the same time that DeSean Jackson did last year, and having seen all of these guys play I certainly wouldn't agree that Heyword-Bey or Mike Wallace are significantly faster than Jackson (who is plenty fast to be sure). Last year at about this time we were callling 4.35s, 4.37s, and 4.4s "elite" and "dazzling" when run by WRs. This year, we have WRs running 4.3, 4.33, 4.34, and 4.40 and we're calling the track slow because some RBs failed to live up to some people's expectations. I mean, Ian Johnson ran a 4.46, better than anybody thought. How fast would he have run if he wasn't on a "slow track"? Heyword-Bey ran faster than all but two players at the 2008 combine, if he wasn't on a "slow track" would he have run that much faster? Do we expect sub 4.3 times to be common because every class needs to top the one before it or something?

I think it's entirely more likely that "this is a totally underwhelming RB class" at least insofar as "pure speed" is concerned. We won't be able to really say "fast track" or "slow track" for sure until we see the other positions run, and from a certain perspective field turf is just field turf. Doesn't matter what color you paint it.

I think really, this RB class is just not that fast, and that's okay because guys who aren't track stars are sometimes good at football. We'll get more data when we see the defensive players start running tomorrow, and the next day. But it's too early to call the track fast or slow.

Staggart
02-23-2009, 09:38 PM
I think I saw this last year and the only guy to be a bust was Kevin Jones.

BamaFalcon59
02-23-2009, 10:01 PM
Michael Turner would register off the charts. (245 x 200)/ (4.00^4) =...

191.4

Baller.

PossibleCabbage
02-23-2009, 10:14 PM
Michael Turner would register off the charts. (245 x 200)/ (4.00^4) =...

191.4

Baller.

Didn't Turner run a 4.49 at the combine and weigh in at 237? That would put him at a 116.6, which is good but not crazy ridiculous. Or is there another guy named Michael Turner who doesn't play football and is some sort of crazy track star that I'm not thinking of?

Kurve
02-23-2009, 10:17 PM
imagine old bo jackson's numbers at the combine he rumored to measure 227lbs and ran a 4.19 40yard which i dunno how accurate that was due to the hand timed numbers but i think he still would legit run a 4.25 - 4.30

BamaFalcon59
02-23-2009, 10:21 PM
Didn't Turner run a 4.49 at the combine and weigh in at 237? That would put him at a 116.6, which is good but not crazy ridiculous. Or is there another guy named Michael Turner who doesn't play football and is some sort of crazy track star that I'm not thinking of?

No, this is false.

Michael Turner, the Falcons runningback, only gott bigger and faster while backing up LaDainian Tomlinson in San Diego. He gained eight pounds and trimmed half a second off of his 40. He now plays for the Atlanta Falcons.

Baller.

Also, I think this is a bit skewed towards speed. 4.50 at 240 (117 score), in my opinion, is just as impressive as a 4.30 at 220 (128 score).

BamaFalcon59
02-23-2009, 10:31 PM
For kicks, Calvin Johnson comes in at like 131.

WCH
02-24-2009, 10:08 AM
Turner running a forty in four seconds flat? 4.00? Shaved a full half second off his time?

Huh?

Did I miss something?

Source?

Kurve
02-24-2009, 11:44 AM
Turner running a forty in four seconds flat? 4.00? Shaved a full half second off his time?

Huh?

Did I miss something?

Source?

yeah i highly doubt anyone in this planet at the moment runs a 4 flat let alone in the NFL.