Worst RBs/WRs with a 1000 yard season?

[JameisBrownston]

I particularly do not find 1,000 yard seasons to be very impressive. Especially in the 16 and now 17 game seasons. If you do the math, that's between 58 and 63 yards per game. Would you want a player like that on your fantasy football team?

Now, if we are talking 1,500 to 2,000 yard seasons, that's different, because the average is close to or greater than 100 yards per game, which for a long time, the "century" mark for a running back or wide receiver, has been the bench mark.

That's a decent to somewhat above average flex guy, depending on the TD rate.

[Bryan]

It may be a non-starter for you, but it's also the truth. It's less relevant when solely looking at home runs, compared to overall effectiveness, since it's limited to the pitcher, and a bit to the catcher.

But it's not about diminishing the Babe's accomplishments. It's about pointing out that Ruth has a number of advantages over Maris

But the advantages you are pointing out are tangential. For it to make any sense, you'd have to conclude that Babe Ruth wouldn't have hit 60 HRs in 1927 if Elston Howard happened to play catcher for the Chicago White Sox. It's a bit loony.

Having more scheduled games gives you greater opportunity to accumulate statistics. That is a fact that can't be argued or misconstrued. Yet, I go over to SABR, where people try really hard to sound intelligent, and I read one of the dumbest statements ever written:

The thought of employing an asterisk, or any other mark, in the record book solely based on the difference in the number scheduled regular season games was not the proper approach for Maris’s 1961 accomplishment. The number of games doesn’t necessarily equate to the degree of opportunity.

Its not that hard. What if Maris played a 500 game season and Ruth played a 50 game season? I don't understand that lack of logic here.

[Jay Z]

It may be a non-starter for you, but it's also the truth. It's less relevant when solely looking at home runs, compared to overall effectiveness, since it's limited to the pitcher, and a bit to the catcher.

But it's not about diminishing the Babe's accomplishments. It's about pointing out that Ruth has a number of advantages over Maris

But the advantages you are pointing out are tangential. For it to make any sense, you'd have to conclude that Babe Ruth wouldn't have hit 60 HRs in 1927 if Elston Howard happened to play catcher for the Chicago White Sox. It's a bit loony.

Having more scheduled games gives you greater opportunity to accumulate statistics. That is a fact that can't be argued or misconstrued. Yet, I go over to SABR, where people try really hard to sound intelligent, and I read one of the dumbest statements ever written:

The thought of employing an asterisk, or any other mark, in the record book solely based on the difference in the number scheduled regular season games was not the proper approach for Maris’s 1961 accomplishment. The number of games doesn’t necessarily equate to the degree of opportunity.

Its not that hard. What if Maris played a 500 game season and Ruth played a 50 game season? I don't understand that lack of logic here.

In baseball time=outs. If your teammates are making lots of outs, you will have fewer opportunities to have hits even if you get a hit every time up.

More hits by your teammates equals more times up for you. The 1961 Yankees played 163 games and the 1927 Yankees played 155 games, an 8 game difference. But more runs were scored by teams in 1927 than they were in 1961. So the difference in plate appearances by the two teams was only 16, 6243 versun 6227. That means over a season a player on the 1961 Yankees would only get two more plate appearances over the whole season than a player on the 1927 Yankees.

Maris had only 7 more plate appearances in 1961 than Ruth did in 1927. But Ruth missed four of his team's games, while Maris missed just two games. If they had both missed the same number of games, their number of plate appearances would have been effectively equal.

[Brian wolf]

With the success of Achane in Miami--who is now sitting with injury--is Beattie Feathers the only 1000 yard rusher who averaged over 8 ypc?

[Brian wolf]

Just read Michael Vick doing it in 2006. We will see if Achane will do it ...

[JameisBrownston]

We know Raheem "Must Start" Mostert is going to get there and probably well past, barring an injury of his own (he is made of wet tissue paper), so if Achane does also, that'll mean 2 1000 yard rushers on the same team. How often does that happen?

[Brian wolf]

I just watched a replay of that game and the Miami offensive line just had its way with the Giants. Mostert would have had a 100 yard game himself but a 39 yard run was called back. That hot blonde for Fox on the sideline reported Daniel Jone's neck injury pretty quickly but missed Achane's injury on his final run. He seemed hurt but nobody knew how serious.

I will admit I am pulling for Mostert to get his first 1000 yard season but he does seem to be brittle as a season wears on. Wilson will start getting alot of work so the Dolphins can save Mostert and Achane for the playoffs, yet the offensive line has to stay healthy themselves ... a big If ...

You heard it here first ... Miami will beat Philly next week, leaving only SF unbeaten

[rhickok1109]

It may be a non-starter for you, but it's also the truth. It's less relevant when solely looking at home runs, compared to overall effectiveness, since it's limited to the pitcher, and a bit to the catcher.

But it's not about diminishing the Babe's accomplishments. It's about pointing out that Ruth has a number of advantages over Maris

But the advantages you are pointing out are tangential. For it to make any sense, you'd have to conclude that Babe Ruth wouldn't have hit 60 HRs in 1927 if Elston Howard happened to play catcher for the Chicago White Sox. It's a bit loony.

Having more scheduled games gives you greater opportunity to accumulate statistics. That is a fact that can't be argued or misconstrued. Yet, I go over to SABR, where people try really hard to sound intelligent, and I read one of the dumbest statements ever written:

The thought of employing an asterisk, or any other mark, in the record book solely based on the difference in the number scheduled regular season games was not the proper approach for Maris’s 1961 accomplishment. The number of games doesn’t necessarily equate to the degree of opportunity.

Its not that hard. What if Maris played a 500 game season and Ruth played a 50 game season? I don't understand that lack of logic here.

Do you think the NFL should list separate records for 10-, 11-, 12-, 13-, 14- 15-, 16-, and 17-game seasons? Should there also be records for those who played in only 5 or 6 games because of injury?

[Bryan]

Do you think the NFL should list separate records for 10-, 11-, 12-, 13-, 14- 15-, 16-, and 17-game seasons? Should there also be records for those who played in only 5 or 6 games because of injury?

I would go with 12, 14, 16 (& now 17) since they had been in existence for a significant amount of time. Would it really be that difficult to do?

As for records for guys who play in a few games and get hurt, I won't dignify that with a response.

[Bryan]

In baseball time=outs. If your teammates are making lots of outs, you will have fewer opportunities to have hits even if you get a hit every time up.

More hits by your teammates equals more times up for you. The 1961 Yankees played 163 games and the 1927 Yankees played 155 games, an 8 game difference. But more runs were scored by teams in 1927 than they were in 1961. So the difference in plate appearances by the two teams was only 16, 6243 versun 6227. That means over a season a player on the 1961 Yankees would only get two more plate appearances over the whole season than a player on the 1927 Yankees.

Maris had only 7 more plate appearances in 1961 than Ruth did in 1927. But Ruth missed four of his team's games, while Maris missed just two games. If they had both missed the same number of games, their number of plate appearances would have been effectively equal.

But that is way too granular and not related to universal advantages. It would be like arguing that John Riggins scored 24 TDs in 1983 but that really shouldn't be a record because he played for an offense that moved the ball really well and Riggins had more opportunities to score TDs. Just trying to be fair in a way that isn't too in the weeds. For the longest time, the NCAA didn't count bowl game stats in a player's season stats. But then they started to include bowl game stats, and of course you immediately had individual college seasonal records broken because now players had an extra game tacked on to their totals. Don Schlundt set the Big 10 all-time basketball scoring record and his record stood for decades because Don was allowed to play as a freshman in 1951 due to the Korean War, and freshmen were not eligible to play varsity basketball until 1972.