No announcement yet.

Running Backs and the 40 Yard Dash

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jakey View Post
    This thread needs more cowbell

    (just so i dont get an is pointless, and is irrelivent)

    hahahhaa couldnt agree more


    • #17
      Originally posted by no love View Post
      I don't get why you act like your "studies" have any sort of statistical significance. You say that there are a number of other fact that effect performance, to say that those are ever "irrelevant" is completely false and you are leading everyone on by saying so.

      Ok why don't you go read a book on survey construction if you love to do correlations so much, so you don't waste everyones time. Let me give you a head start and give you a few pointers.

      1) Make your prompt and your question completely clear and try to remove any bias from your questions. You want to know why people had problems with your survey? Because the construction was poor.

      2) Use a likert (5 point scale) with measures that are easier to quantify. In most cases when surveys have more than this many variables, the respondent gets disinterested and stops reading all of the variables. Your sample size will be too small with this board to have any significance if you run a t-test or other measure of statistical significance when you have 2-3 people answer each response for each person.

      3) You should only survey people on knowledge that they might be familiar with. You are asking people to make an objective rating of probably 7/10 players that they know nothing about. This will prove nothing other than the fact that people know nothing about the players.

      4) Your sample size of running backs is too small, and the sample of their carries is too small to determine anything about a correlation between their success and their 40 time. Because of the complex nature of an offense, the multiple different types of runs that an offense has, and the fact that you have guys on the list that have under 100 carries it makes it really hard to say that a offense was even giving the ball in like situations.

      5) Don't mix the statistics (not stats, I mean statistical significance and correlations) and football. It's stupid.

      I work as a research and if you look hard enough you can find some sort of significance between the number of lamp posts in an backroad of indiana and the number of homicides. But just because you can run a nice regression line, doesn't mean a whole lot in the world of football. Trust and stop with this nonsense.
      Let me give YOU some advice.

      1. Read what I write before you criticize. I never said that what I was doing really had any statistical significance. This "study", "project", or whatever you want to call it is all for fun.

      2. If you think this is a waste of your time, then don't bother reading or responding. It's as simple as that.

      3. Read what I write, once again...I suggest that I'm looking for at least 10 ratings for each player. And to suggest that a sample size of what will end up being 80 running backs is a little ridiculous too.

      The final point of this study is to judge whether a running back's straightline speed (as measured by his 40 yard dash time) correlates with his overall performance in the NFL. Therfore, those other variables are irrelevant to this study.

      Finally, take a look around and realize that if I really wanted this to be something professional, I really wouldn't be going to a random football forum for input. I'd go around and get the opinions of football experts from around the league to judge these running backs. That's not what this is. It's a fun little way for me to pass the time and possibly include some other forum members. Just because you work as a researcher doesn't mean you have to be so snobby about this whole thing.


      • #18
        you can't include guys in this survey who were given NO chance to carry the ball... you have to use runningbacks who have over a certain number of carries, say 100 or 200 career carries, at that point it ought to be obvious if they were capable of success in the NFL.

        you absolutely cannot consider this guy: Thomas Hamner 0/0/0; 0/0 in this study... i told you in the quarterback thread that you should just do the guys from the first 3 rounds (possibly 4 rounds) because those are the guys who were expected coming into the league to contribute.

        Sig by me... Hold the applause.



        Debug Information