Chiefs Interesting statistical analysis pt. 2: Jamaal Charles >>> Adrian Peterson

Direckshun · 09-06-2014, 11:15 PM

And it's not even close.

http://loglr.com/i/134414

Last year, Kansas City went 11-5 despite a significant regression in QB Alex Smith’s statistics from the year before. How did they do so well (aside from having a highly favorable turnover differential)?

Largely because of Alex Smith.5 He may not be the QB Chiefs fans wanted, but he’s the QB Chiefs fans needed. While Smith’s passer rating of 89.1 represented a 15-point drop from his 2012 season with San Francisco,6 it’s still 25.3 points higher than Kansas City’s 2012 quarterbacks.7

But Alex Smith isn’t even close to being the Chiefs’ best player.8 That would be all-star running back Jamaal Charles, who led the Chiefs in both rushing and receiving last year, and who has averaged 5.6 yards per carry over his career.

While Fantasy Football players have been intimately familiar with Charles since his breakout 2009 season, the three-time Pro-Bowler has flown a little under the radar playing for a Kansas City team that hasn’t won a playoff game since 1993.

In my NFC North season preview, I mildly criticized Adrian Peterson9 for being better at the kinds of things the passing game already has covered (breaking long plays), and worse at the kinds of things that help keep the running game relevant (gaining yardage consistently, setting up high-leverage second downs). So with another star running back on my plate, I thought I should check to see if Charles has similar problems.

The simple answer is “no.” The slightly more complicated answer is “no, and this is a silly comparison because Jamaal Charles is way better than Adrian Peterson.”

Let’s start with what kinds of outcomes each back produces on first-and-10 runs from outside the red zone10:

Charles runs for losses or no yards less often than Peterson does, has more quality (4-6 yard) and high-leverage (7-9 yard) gains, runs for first downs more often, and has more yards per carry on those first down runs.

OK, fine. But there’s more to being a running back than just running on first down, right? For a more comprehensive comparison, I looked at a number of different scenarios11:

This is a bit of a split decision. AP is a little better on second-and-mid-distance (which is one of the more common running situations) and a little bit better on third-and-1 (though Charles isn’t used that way very often). On the other hand, Charles appears to be better at second-and-short-distance as well as third-and-medium to third-and-long (which Peterson is not asked to do very often, either).

To try to boil it down in a way that’s neutral to team circumstances, I took each RB’s performance for all scenarios (including those above and rarer ones) and applied it to the frequency of those scenarios league wide. The result of that calculation is pretty lopsided: On a common set of runs, Charles would likely pick up first downs 5.7 percentage points more often and would gain 1.6 yards more per carry than an average running back, compared to 3.2 percentage points and 1.0 extra yards per carry for Peterson. In other words, per carry, Charles gains about 0.6 more yards and is 2.5 percentage points more likely to pick up a first down than Peterson.

Meanwhile, Charles is also more of a threat to catch passes, wrangling in 222 receptions for 1,975 yards and 14 touchdowns in 80 games, compared to Peterson’s 206 catches, 1,697 yards and 5 TDs in 103 games. When throwing to Charles, QBs have a passer rating of 101.1, compared to 77.3 normally. QBs have a passer rating of 89.7 when targeting Peterson, versus 80.6 normally.

In other words, not only does Charles catch more passes, but targeting him has led to better outcomes for worse quarterbacks. Also, he has had worse quarterbacks! This makes his performance less likely to be a product of his team’s offense.

All in all, the Chiefs should probably expect to regress somewhat after such a dramatic improvement (and such a favorable turnover margin) last year, but they definitely have some weapons to keep them competitive.

09-06-2014, 11:15 PM	Topic Starter
Direckshun __ Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $4093447	Interesting statistical analysis pt. 2: Jamaal Charles >>> Adrian Peterson And it's not even close. http://loglr.com/i/134414 Last year, Kansas City went 11-5 despite a significant regression in QB Alex Smith’s statistics from the year before. How did they do so well (aside from having a highly favorable turnover differential)? Largely because of Alex Smith.5 He may not be the QB Chiefs fans wanted, but he’s the QB Chiefs fans needed. While Smith’s passer rating of 89.1 represented a 15-point drop from his 2012 season with San Francisco,6 it’s still 25.3 points higher than Kansas City’s 2012 quarterbacks.7 But Alex Smith isn’t even close to being the Chiefs’ best player.8 That would be all-star running back Jamaal Charles, who led the Chiefs in both rushing and receiving last year, and who has averaged 5.6 yards per carry over his career. While Fantasy Football players have been intimately familiar with Charles since his breakout 2009 season, the three-time Pro-Bowler has flown a little under the radar playing for a Kansas City team that hasn’t won a playoff game since 1993. In my NFC North season preview, I mildly criticized Adrian Peterson9 for being better at the kinds of things the passing game already has covered (breaking long plays), and worse at the kinds of things that help keep the running game relevant (gaining yardage consistently, setting up high-leverage second downs). So with another star running back on my plate, I thought I should check to see if Charles has similar problems. The simple answer is “no.” The slightly more complicated answer is “no, and this is a silly comparison because Jamaal Charles is way better than Adrian Peterson.” Let’s start with what kinds of outcomes each back produces on first-and-10 runs from outside the red zone10: Charles runs for losses or no yards less often than Peterson does, has more quality (4-6 yard) and high-leverage (7-9 yard) gains, runs for first downs more often, and has more yards per carry on those first down runs. OK, fine. But there’s more to being a running back than just running on first down, right? For a more comprehensive comparison, I looked at a number of different scenarios11: This is a bit of a split decision. AP is a little better on second-and-mid-distance (which is one of the more common running situations) and a little bit better on third-and-1 (though Charles isn’t used that way very often). On the other hand, Charles appears to be better at second-and-short-distance as well as third-and-medium to third-and-long (which Peterson is not asked to do very often, either). To try to boil it down in a way that’s neutral to team circumstances, I took each RB’s performance for all scenarios (including those above and rarer ones) and applied it to the frequency of those scenarios league wide. The result of that calculation is pretty lopsided: On a common set of runs, Charles would likely pick up first downs 5.7 percentage points more often and would gain 1.6 yards more per carry than an average running back, compared to 3.2 percentage points and 1.0 extra yards per carry for Peterson. In other words, per carry, Charles gains about 0.6 more yards and is 2.5 percentage points more likely to pick up a first down than Peterson. Meanwhile, Charles is also more of a threat to catch passes, wrangling in 222 receptions for 1,975 yards and 14 touchdowns in 80 games, compared to Peterson’s 206 catches, 1,697 yards and 5 TDs in 103 games. When throwing to Charles, QBs have a passer rating of 101.1, compared to 77.3 normally. QBs have a passer rating of 89.7 when targeting Peterson, versus 80.6 normally. In other words, not only does Charles catch more passes, but targeting him has led to better outcomes for worse quarterbacks. Also, he has had worse quarterbacks! This makes his performance less likely to be a product of his team’s offense. All in all, the Chiefs should probably expect to regress somewhat after such a dramatic improvement (and such a favorable turnover margin) last year, but they definitely have some weapons to keep them competitive.
Posts: 59,327