Ridley's "fumbling problem"

[crypto]

I realize that sports journalists weren't the guys who decided to bench Ridley for a full game, but I don't really understand how these ~analysts~ draw the line and declare that a running back has a fumbling problem.

This season's top five RBs (in terms of total yards) combine for 16 fumbles at .0130 fumbles per carry, whereas Ridley commits .0296 fumbles per carry. It's been a while since I learned how to test for statistical significance but I'm pretty sure this difference doesn't qualify.

I don't find the argument that Ridley fumbled three games in a row particularly convincing since (1) the Pittsburgh drop was hardly a matter of ball protection (and arguably should have been recorded as an incomplete pass) and (2) you can only point to this streak if you also acknowledge the seven consecutive games in which he didn't fumble.

I get that the Pats were going for a reliable 3- or 4-ypc RB who wouldn't commit turnovers, rather than a more explosive but also more turnover-prone back, since they obviously returned to form as a passing team with Gronkowski back from his injury, but now I'm curious with Gronk out again and a defense that could really use the help of clock-killing drives. I'd think they might do well to lean a little more on Ridley if he's more consistent and explosive off the hand-off than Blount, Vereen, and Bolden.

I get that BB's philosophy is something to consider and I'm totally open to proven wrong but yeah.

Another caveat: I admit I'm not as sold on Ridley over Blount as I have been for pretty much the duration of the season. I used to hate watching Blount run but he's really changed my mind over the last few weeks.

 

[SB39]

This season's top five RBs (in terms of total yards) combine for 16 fumbles at .0130 fumbles per carry, whereas Ridley commits .0296 fumbles per carry. It's been a while since I learned how to test for statistical significance but I'm pretty sure this difference doesn't qualify.

Well, .0296 is over twice as large as .0130. So I'd say that there is a good chance it counts as statistically significant, although I could not make a certain determination without knowing sample size.

 

[supafly]

In understanding that I have agreed with your thoughts on the topic in the past, and still do to some level, here are some of my opinions:

1. The statistical numbers kind of prove that he's fumbling at more than 2x the rate, no? Much like you said, I am not a math whiz either, but if the average top 5 RB's are fumbling at a rate of .0130, and he's fumbling at a rate of .0296, isn't that more than twice the rate?

2. Either way you look at it, Ridley leads the entire NFL in fumbles outside of the position of QB. I'd have to say that qualifies as a "fumbling problem," in the eyes of many. You also have to take his past 2 seasons into play, as we've dealt with this issue in all 3 seasons.

3. That said, it is more the fact that he fumbled in 3 consecutive games than the actual total. If you remember, Belichick benched him for our entire postseason when we went to the SB in 2011, and he had only lost ONE fumble to that point. We certainly could have used him in the SB, there's no doubt about that one.

4. Belichick did give him the benefit of the doubt after the Steelers game, publicly stating that Troy Polamalu made a great play, and sometimes there's no much that can be done about that. The tide turned however when he fumbled in 2 consecutive games, and it could be argued that would have been the difference in the CAR game. When he not only put it on the ground the next week again vs DEN, he also took 7 pts off the board for us (again), and gave those 7 pts to DEN as they scored a TD on the play. That isn't the first time that situation has happened this year, as week #1 should have never been as close as it was. We were running away with the game at BUF, and should have gone up 17-0; instead they recovered and made it 10-7. They then used that momentum to totally turn the entire game around, which is one of the reasons why it was so close at 23-21. You can't have your RB scoring for the other team.

5. Blount is a tough downhill runner, but he's never going to break one like Ridley would, unless it's a totally clear path to the endzone or he gets a great block like in the preseason game. Ridley actually has the capacity and speed to take it to the house on any given play should he hit the 3rd level. Blount has done a good job (aside from his own fumbling issues, which are historically more than Ridley, and 2x this season here), but his ceiling is limited in my opinion. I still think he can have 100 yd games on occasion, but we'd likely need to feed him the ball 20+ times, and I don't think that is going to happen too often. In the meantime he has done his job for the most part. Ridley is still our best RB though, and we're limited in our attack without him getting 12-15 carries per game at a minimum.

6. Most of us are hoping that Ridley regains his starting job by playoff time, but he will have to earn it first with his play.

 

[patsfan-1982]

the media would not be talking about it if BB would not bench Ridley ever time he has fumbled in his 3 year career. BB sees it as a problem so the media is going to talk about,

I agree that Ridley is the best RB on the team and should be getting 15 plus att but we seen it today the pats are not a good running team there running game can be shut down by a good front 4 and now that the defense is giving up a average of 28 per game over the last 5 games they really cant run the ball the way they did at the start of the year

 

[crypto]

It's:

16 fumbles / 1,229 carries = .0130

4 fumbles / 135 carries = .0296

 

[IcyPatriot]

These threads were not good enough?

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...s-not-let-facts-get-way.html?highlight=ridley

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ally-arrives-crossroads.html?highlight=ridley

 

[crypto]

I guess I should've done a more thorough search and bumped a two-week old thread but I'll have to settle for apologizing to you for damaging your quality of life with Internet message board pollution.

 

[RayClay]

I guess I should've done a more thorough search and bumped a two-week old thread but I'll have to settle for apologizing to you for damaging your quality of life with Internet message board pollution.

Sometimes watching is a lot better than statistics. When Ridley spun around counter clockwise, ball arm first causing the ball to be ejected like it was shot from a cannon, the consensus seemed to be that he was in need of some ball security practice. Not the first time, either. All fumbles are not created equal.

 

[moosekill]

5. Blount is a tough downhill runner, but he's never going to break one like Ridley would, unless it's a totally clear path to the endzone or he gets a great block like in the preseason game. Ridley actually has the capacity and speed to take it to the house on any given play should he hit the 3rd level. Blount has done a good job (aside from his own fumbling issues, which are historically more than Ridley, and 2x this season here), but his ceiling is limited in my opinion. I still think he can have 100 yd games on occasion, but we'd likely need to feed him the ball 20+ times, and I don't think that is going to happen too often. In the meantime he has done his job for the most part. Ridley is still our best RB though, and we're limited in our attack without him getting 12-15 carries per game at a minimum.
.

When was the last time Ridley "broke" one? ...............................Still waiting..............................Any time now................ Oh yea he hasn't, you can certainly like Ridley for hitting the hole fast and hard. Getting some pretty good yards at times, although this game certainly wasn't a very good example of it. But he never ever "breaks one" Blount, however, has certainly shown the ability to do this a number of times, not just this season but in the past. I am rather surprised by this completely flawed description. I expect more from you.