ROTOWIRE.COM NFL MLB / Minors NBA NHL GOLF RACING    COMMUNITY FORUMS PODCASTS MYROTOWIRE ASK AN EXPERT GAMES

Is the Curse of 370 Overblown?

A few years ago, Football Outsiders concluded based on historical data that backs who eclipsed the the 370-carry mark are especially prone to break down the following season. While it makes sense generally that heavy workloads would tend to wear players down, it doesn't follow that any one cutoff point (300, 350, 370, etc.) would have any special significance given the diversity of running-back body types, blocking schemes and running styles. Nonetheless, the 370-rule gained some traction, and some owners have avoided these 370-plus backs (Michael Turner is the only one from last season). Are they wise to do so? Not according to analysis by Advanced NFL Stats which explains the 370 curse as garden-variety regression to the mean, normal running back injury rates and some cherry-picking of stats. (h/t: Yahoo! Sports' Scott Pianowski and Andy Behrens).

It's worth clicking through the link, but the explanation is fairly obvious. When a back gets the ball 370 times, he's necessarily healthy all year, almost always near his peak in production (why else give him the ball so much) and playing on a team that's often winning late in games. When those (and a couple other factors) don't align perfectly - and they rarely will - the back will see less carries, be less effective, or miss time due to injury. In fact, no matter what kind of season a player has the year before, he's very unlikely to do as well as the typical 370-carry back in the succeeding one.

Again, I'm not necessarily denying the relationship between workload and decline, but I'd expect it depends on a lot of factors, including genetics, running style, career workload, etc. In other words, there's no reason to think Michael Turner (377 carries) is a bigger risk than Matt Forte (315 carries) or Adrian Peterson (364 carries) based merely on Turner's passing a magic number.

Comments

By: jtr5708
On: 7/23/2009 3:02:00 PM		 I'll still take Michael Turner within the top 3 picks of any Football Draft. Here is an article that is very pro 370 Curse from FootballDocs.com:

Effect of Running Back Carries on Future Production
 
By: jtr5708
On: 7/23/2009 3:04:00 PM		 I meant top 3 Running Backs, not overall.
 
By: StephaniaB
On: 7/23/2009 4:55:00 PM		 Chris: Nice post - you know I agree with you fully on this. Interesting to see the Advanced NFL Stats argument. I agree that increased workload takes a physical toll - but an arbitrary number does not necessarily conclude a cause and effect relationship. And I would certainly look at Michael Turner's relatively conservative production (for obvious reasons) prior to last year as an argument in his favor as to why he might be healthier now than someone who had [i]averaged[i] more work in years past.
 
By: jtr5708
On: 7/23/2009 5:04:00 PM		 Is this the distinguished, beautiful Stephania Bell posting on Rotowire?
 
By: Dalton Del Don
On: 7/23/2009 6:05:00 PM		 I definitely agree with the conclusion here and wondered why everyone always brings up Turner and not Adrian Peterson, who carried the ball 383 times last season. However, evidence still points to typical decline from runners coming off such situations, and while the REASON WHY may be wrong, I'd still temper expectations on Michael Turner this year. I'll go ahead and repeat myself from the magazine: "it's worth noting he scored 11 touchdowns over four games against the Lions, Chiefs, Broncos and Panthers - run defenses that ranked 32nd, 30th, 31st and 22nd, respectively." This year, he faces a MUCH tougher schedule, as Atlanta's opponents ranked on average 13.5 against the run last season, which is by far the most difficult in the NFL. Of course, defenses fluctuate year to year, but he also offers nothing in the passing game, and Tony Gonzalez should be involved at the goal line. Don't get me wrong, the Falcons' offense should be sick, and Turner is very good (led the NFL with 44 broken tackles last year), but I'd consider Steve Slaton and Chris Johnson over him in fantasy leagues.
 
By: Dalton Del Don
On: 7/23/2009 6:06:00 PM		 And yes that's Stephania Bell - she actually started at RotoWire.
 
By: Scott Pianowski
On: 7/23/2009 7:49:00 PM		 There are so many things we're not talking about if the focus is only on the regular-season carry count. Why do receptions not factor into this; I realize that you're less likely to get gang tackles on a catch, but you still get hit by someone. What about playoff carries? When is a running back receiving the most punishment, and what do some backs do to lessen the risks? And how many running backs happen to get hurt merely because of the daily hazards of the position, injuries that have with nothing to do with a mounting workload?

If Michael Turner had 342 carries last year with 40 catches, as opposed to 376 carries and six catches, would we really rank him any differently in basic formats? I wouldn't.
 
By: Dalton Del Don
On: 7/23/2009 7:53:00 PM		 I actually meant to bring up the receptions angle but forgot in my long-winded comment. Great point Scott. And receptions supposedly have an inverse relationship with injuries. I get they often occur in open space and maybe there is less cumulative damage, but please try to explain that one.
 
By: schoenke
On: 7/23/2009 9:07:00 PM		 I seem to recall lots of "the 370 curse is overrated talk" back when Larry Johnson was a candidate. And he didn't have a big career workload. Sounds eerily similar.
 
By: Chris Liss
On: 7/23/2009 9:10:00 PM		 Right, Dalton, but your argument would be exactly the same if Turner had 325 carries last year instead. Things aligned for Turner perfectly and probably won't again this year. But if they somehow do, e.g., the teams the Falcons are projected to play actually defend the run more poorly than expected, and Tony Gonzalez is out for the year in Week 1, Turner might well repeat last year's success. And yes, that's RotoWire alum Stephania Bell you see on ESPN. (And RotoWire alum Scott Pianowski you read on Yahoo). As for the catches, if I had to come up with a formula, I'd probably say 2 catches = 1 carry, but I'm sure it varies depending on whether it's Reggie Bush or Matt Forte making them. One reason catches might be inversely related with production decline is that backs who catch passes are part of the offense even when the team is doing poorly, or the line isn't blocking well. Also because each player can only handle a finite amount of touches, more catches typically equal less carries. So backs who catch passes are involved no matter what the score, and less carry-dependent for production. Thus, conditions do not have to be as perfect for them to repeat their performance in subsequent years. The Shaun Alexanders and Michael Turners need things to align perfectly, but the Brian Westbrooks and Marshall Faulks will thrive regardless of the score or game situation. But just forcing 30 more passes to stone-handed Brandon Jacobs isn't going to keep him any healthier.
 
By: Dalton Del Don
On: 7/23/2009 9:38:00 PM		 Peter - Good point. But it's worth noting LJ had 429 carries that year, easily an NFL-record. But still, you're right, his next year was ruined by injury, and while one argument is Michael Turner has just 604 career carries, the counter would say a jump from 71 carries to 394 might be a bigger concern, since he wasn't even close to being used to that kind of workload.
 
By: Dalton Del Don
On: 7/23/2009 9:45:00 PM		 Liss - No argument here. My Turner stance would remain the same if he had 325 carries in 2008, I was only pointing out that usually backs who receive that kind of workload occur under "perfect circumstances." I'm not down on A. Peterson (although I do consider MJD very close to #1) this year because of his workload last season. I actually really like Turner as a RB - SD would be FAR better off with him rather than Tomlinson this year. Receiving ability is just really important with fantasy running backs.
 
By: Erik Siegrist
On: 7/24/2009 6:20:00 AM		 That's a good point about Turner's increase in workload. Has anyone looked to see if that could be a factor instead of raw touches (similar to how baseball pitchers are more likely to get hurt after a big workload increase than they are if they cross some arbitrary innings mark)?
 
By: Chris Liss
On: 7/24/2009 9:50:00 AM		 I don't buy the increase/pitching analogy. Throwing a ball at 95 mph is an unnatural act, and especially throwing an 85 mph breaking ball. To repeat that hundreds of times per game over a significant number of innings takes some arm stamina that virtually no one is born with and therefore must be increased slowly. But from that it doesn't follow that engaging is another risky activity (carrying the rock in the NFL) must also be increased slowly. The only thing in common between the two is that both lead to injuries. But getting tackled doesn't necessarily make you any better at withstanding hits, whereas building arm strength clearly makes you better at withstanding high pitch counts and innings. Consider that a reliever can't just throw 110 pitches in his first spot start - he's got to build up to it. But a backup running back who got zero carries last week can immediately come in and get 30 carries if he has to. And that he got zero doesn't make him more likely to get hurt. In fact, probably less, as his legs are fresh, and he's not playing with any nagging injuries. So the idea that increasing one's workload dramatically would have a worse affect than just having that same workload after a more gradual increase in previous is highly implausible to me.
 

Leave a comment

Commenting is restricted to registered users only. Please register or login now to submit a comment.

Tell Someone

  • Digg it
  • submit to reddit reddit
  • Add to Mixx!

Recent Favorites

Ranking MLB Stadiums, Part 1
The first in a series on MLB stadiums, past and present.
A Few More Super Bowl Thoughts
I was beaten to the punch here, but let me just add ...

1. The best thing about Super Bowl XLIV to me is that it totally destroyed the pre-game coventional wisdom. Everyone who picked the Colts -- everyone -- did so because of Peyton Manning. The Colts have Peyton, therefore it's just short of a foregone conclusion they will win. That's what it felt like at least.
Super Bowl XLIV Observations
The Saints defense was the story, mostly shutting down the Colts in the second half and stopping them on their final three drives. The biggest stand was probably when the Colts were up one and moving the ball into New Orleans territory, but were forced into a 4th and 11 where they attempted an ill-advised 50-yard field goal. The next drive was the pick-six and the final drive didn't matter much, but the Colts never did get into the end zone to make it a one-score game and have the chance for an onside kick.
Exit Interview - Super Bowl 44
A few things to clean up about Super Bowl 44, with Sean Payton justly in the leadoff spot:
Early 2010 NFL Mock Draft
RotoWire staff and colleagues got together today at Mock Draft Central for a very early NFL draft. Standard scoring, 1 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 FLEX, 1 TE, 1 K, 1 D. Here are the results:

RSS Feeds