Varsity Numbers: Revisiting the RYPR

October 31, 2013, 4:36 pm ET

Photo: USA Today Sports Images

by Bill Connelly

Last year around this time, I took a stab at a receivers stat that took simple Yards Per Target (a lovely stat) to a new level. It was flawed, and I vowed to make improvements to the measure, but a year later, that hasn't happened yet. So to rekindle the conversation, let's take another look at what I called RYPR last year.

Below, you will find a measure that attempts to answer the following questions about a given pass-catcher:

1) How much do you produce?
2) How important are you to your team's passing game?
3) How good is the passing game to which you are important?
4) And how much is the forward pass featured in your team's offense?

The idea was to simply multiply the following four factors together: a player's Yards Per Target, his Target Rate, his team's Passing S&P+, and his team's pass rate. Target Rate x Yards Per Target x Passing S&P+ x Pass Rate = RYPR.

Simplified, it's basically this:

RYPR = (receiving yards / total team plays) * Passing S&P+

Again, it's not bad. It gives a single player too much credit for his team's Passing S&P+ overall, but the initial goal here isn't to produce the perfect receiver measure -- it's simply to answer the four questions listed above. As soon as I give myself the time, we'll take this further.

For now, though, here is the RYPR Top 100 for 2013 thus far. You can find all 899 FBS players with at least 10 targets rated here.

Team	Player	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Yds Per Target	Target Rate	Target No.	Passing S&P+	Pass Rate	RYPR	Rk
Baylor	Antwan Goodley	51	39	904	76.5%	17.7	23.9%	1	209.9	46.9%	417.8	1
Baylor	Tevin Reese	47	33	824	70.2%	17.5	22.1%	2	209.9	46.9%	380.8	2
Florida State	Rashad Greene	56	39	690	69.6%	12.3	28.6%	1	172.8	53.2%	323.9	3
LSU	Odell Beckham Jr.	70	48	1009	68.6%	14.4	30.8%	2	147.3	46.4%	303.5	4
Texas A&M	Mike Evans	60	48	1101	80.0%	18.4	20.1%	2	149.9	52.8%	292.6	5
Florida State	Kenny Shaw	39	31	574	79.5%	14.7	19.9%	2	172.8	53.2%	269.5	6
Oregon State	Brandin Cooks	108	85	1256	78.7%	11.6	27.9%	1	119.0	69.8%	269.5	7
LSU	Jarvis Landry	76	58	882	76.3%	11.6	33.5%	1	147.3	46.4%	265.3	8
Michigan	Jeremy Gallon	63	45	831	71.4%	13.2	38.7%	1	124.0	39.4%	249.0	9
Arizona State	Jaelen Strong	69	45	685	65.2%	9.9	24.6%	1	153.7	60.6%	227.9	10
Pittsburgh	Devin Street	61	35	645	57.4%	10.6	35.5%	1	127.4	46.8%	223.4	11
Wisconsin	Jared Abbrederis	68	43	752	63.2%	11.1	39.1%	1	108.1	47.6%	222.2	12
Colorado	Paul Richardson	87	50	914	57.5%	10.5	39.7%	1	100.8	52.0%	218.7	13
Oregon	Josh Huff	56	38	703	67.9%	12.6	23.6%	2	149.7	47.1%	209.3	14
Florida State	Kelvin Benjamin	39	23	430	59.0%	11.0	19.9%	3	172.8	53.2%	201.9	15
Ball State	Willie Snead	115	65	1057	56.5%	9.2	33.4%	1	109.6	58.6%	197.3	16
San Jose State	Chandler Jones	57	40	805	70.2%	14.1	22.2%	1	114.3	54.1%	193.7	17
Indiana	Cody Latimer	62	40	640	64.5%	10.3	23.0%	1	137.5	59.3%	193.1	18
Stanford	Ty Montgomery	59	39	619	66.1%	10.5	34.5%	1	129.4	41.1%	192.7	19
Kansas State	Tyler Lockett	54	39	586	72.2%	10.9	33.3%	1	121.8	43.7%	192.5	20
Houston	Deontay Greenberry	88	58	843	65.9%	9.6	33.2%	1	108.1	55.6%	191.2	21
Duke	Jamison Crowder	94	60	769	63.8%	8.2	38.5%	1	122.6	48.8%	188.7	22
Miami	Allen Hurns	44	28	506	63.6%	11.5	24.4%	1	141.1	47.4%	187.8	23
Vanderbilt	Jordan Matthews	96	66	890	68.8%	9.3	40.0%	1	97.1	51.0%	183.7	24
Central Florida	Breshad Perriman	32	22	507	68.8%	15.8	15.5%	3	141.0	52.9%	183.6	25
Team	Player	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Yds Per Target	Target Rate	Target No.	Passing S&P+	Pass Rate	RYPR	Rk
Pittsburgh	Tyler Boyd	50	34	526	68.0%	10.5	29.1%	2	127.4	46.8%	182.2	26
Oregon	Bralon Addison	62	38	609	61.3%	9.8	26.2%	1	149.7	47.1%	181.3	27
Ohio	Donte Foster	73	50	721	68.5%	9.9	30.2%	1	118.8	50.4%	178.4	28
Boston College	Alex Amidon	57	46	585	80.7%	10.3	41.0%	1	110.2	38.5%	178.4	29
Wake Forest	Michael Campanaro	99	65	792	65.7%	8.0	39.6%	1	99.2	55.8%	175.5	30
Clemson	Sammy Watkins	80	58	813	72.5%	10.2	26.0%	1	127.5	51.9%	174.8	31
East Carolina	Justin Hardy	84	67	765	79.8%	9.1	27.5%	1	112.6	62.0%	174.5	32
Notre Dame	TJ Jones	67	44	631	65.7%	9.4	26.9%	1	129.4	52.3%	171.5	33
Utah	Dres Anderson	64	33	642	51.6%	10.0	26.9%	1	121.7	50.1%	164.6	34
Fresno State	Davante Adams	93	72	811	77.4%	8.7	27.0%	1	99.9	69.5%	163.6	35
Texas Tech	Jace Amaro	97	64	861	66.0%	8.9	24.0%	1	117.1	65.1%	162.0	36
North Carolina	Eric Ebron	50	35	599	70.0%	12.0	20.0%	1	127.9	52.7%	161.6	37
Missouri	L'Damian Washington	53	33	635	62.3%	12.0	21.0%	2	123.9	51.1%	159.5	38
Central Florida	Rannell Hall	41	28	437	68.3%	10.7	19.9%	1	141.0	52.9%	158.3	39
Penn State	Allen Robinson	86	55	878	64.0%	10.2	34.8%	1	82.0	54.3%	158.2	40
Ball State	Jordan Williams	79	56	792	70.9%	10.0	23.0%	2	109.6	58.6%	147.9	41
Michigan	Devin Funchess	36	23	492	63.9%	13.7	22.1%	2	124.0	39.4%	147.4	42
Maryland	Stefon Diggs	56	34	587	60.7%	10.5	21.8%	1	123.4	52.0%	146.7	43
Louisville	Damian Copeland	50	33	486	66.0%	9.7	20.1%	1	136.7	54.9%	146.5	44
Florida State	Nick O'Leary	22	17	307	77.3%	14.0	11.2%	4	172.8	53.2%	144.1	45
UL-Lafayette	Jamal Robinson	56	33	540	58.9%	9.6	32.4%	1	110.2	41.6%	143.2	46
Old Dominion	Larry Pinkard	32	24	271	75.0%	8.5	23.7%	1	100.1	71.2%	143.1	47
UNLV	Devante Davis	84	52	802	61.9%	9.5	29.2%	1	100.3	51.0%	142.5	48
Ohio State	Devin Smith	51	35	524	68.6%	10.3	23.8%	1	129.6	43.7%	138.6	49
Ohio	Chase Cochran	33	25	557	75.8%	16.9	13.6%	3	118.8	50.4%	137.8	50
Team	Player	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Yds Per Target	Target Rate	Target No.	Passing S&P+	Pass Rate	RYPR	Rk
Louisville	DeVante Parker	35	27	457	77.1%	13.1	14.1%	2	136.7	54.9%	137.7	51
Ohio State	Corey Brown	49	37	520	75.5%	10.6	22.9%	2	129.6	43.7%	137.5	52
Indiana	Kofi Hughes	53	28	454	52.8%	8.6	19.6%	2	137.5	59.3%	137.0	53
Georgia	Chris Conley	53	30	418	56.6%	7.9	24.9%	1	144.0	47.3%	133.6	54
SMU	Jeremy Johnson	99	64	752	64.6%	7.6	26.7%	1	96.0	67.6%	131.6	55
North Texas	Brelan Chancellor	47	36	619	76.6%	13.2	19.0%	2	108.1	48.3%	130.9	56
Oregon State	Richard Mullaney	59	38	606	64.4%	10.3	15.2%	2	119.0	69.8%	130.0	57
California	Chris Harper	91	57	790	62.6%	8.7	22.7%	2	98.5	66.9%	129.8	58
Arizona State	D.J. Foster	51	36	387	70.6%	7.6	18.2%	2	153.7	60.6%	128.8	59
Washington State	Gabe Marks	85	59	668	69.4%	7.9	19.1%	1	106.4	79.9%	127.6	60
Louisville	Eli Rogers	35	31	422	88.6%	12.1	14.1%	3	136.7	54.9%	127.2	61
Notre Dame	DaVaris Daniels	64	30	463	46.9%	7.2	25.7%	2	129.4	52.3%	125.8	62
Auburn	Sammie Coates	46	21	536	45.7%	11.7	25.8%	1	111.0	37.6%	125.7	63
Vanderbilt	Jonathan Krause	45	32	608	71.1%	13.5	18.8%	2	97.1	51.0%	125.5	64
Central Michigan	Titus Davis	63	34	627	54.0%	10.0	27.2%	1	89.6	51.5%	124.9	65
Tulane	Ryan Grant	75	53	700	70.7%	9.3	32.2%	1	83.9	49.3%	124.4	66
Houston	Daniel Spencer	47	31	543	66.0%	11.6	17.7%	2	108.1	55.6%	123.1	67
Maryland	Deon Long	55	32	489	58.2%	8.9	21.4%	2	123.4	52.0%	122.2	68
Troy	Eric Thomas	65	42	667	64.6%	10.3	22.0%	1	99.6	54.4%	122.1	69
San Jose State	Tyler Winston	37	24	506	64.9%	13.7	14.4%	2	114.3	54.1%	121.8	70
Buffalo	Alex Neutz	67	39	628	58.2%	9.4	30.0%	1	91.6	47.1%	121.6	71
USC	Nelson Agholor	50	30	539	60.0%	10.8	24.0%	2	100.4	45.8%	119.2	72
Indiana	Shane Wynn	31	22	394	71.0%	12.7	11.5%	4	137.5	59.3%	118.9	73
Texas A&M	Malcome Kennedy	64	43	447	67.2%	7.0	21.5%	1	149.9	52.8%	118.8	74
Stanford	Devon Cajuste	34	21	377	61.8%	11.1	19.9%	2	129.4	41.1%	117.4	75
Team	Player	Targets	Catches	Yards	Catch Rate	Yds Per Target	Target Rate	Target No.	Passing S&P+	Pass Rate	RYPR	Rk
Georgia State	Albert Wilson	85	43	798	50.6%	9.4	32.6%	1	66.5	57.8%	117.3	76
South Carolina	Bruce Ellington	44	31	468	70.5%	10.6	18.0%	1	127.2	48.1%	117.3	77
SMU	Keenan Holman	65	42	665	64.6%	10.2	17.5%	3	96.0	67.6%	116.3	78
San Diego State	Ezell Ruffin	61	40	668	65.6%	11.0	25.7%	1	84.1	48.8%	115.5	79
South Carolina	Damiere Byrd	42	23	460	54.8%	11.0	17.2%	2	127.2	48.1%	115.3	80
Marshall	Tommy Shuler	73	49	517	67.1%	7.1	29.9%	1	110.2	49.4%	115.3	81
Missouri	Dorial Green-Beckham	50	31	457	62.0%	9.1	19.8%	3	123.9	51.1%	114.8	82
Western Michigan	Corey Davis	100	55	761	55.0%	7.6	32.7%	1	82.6	55.8%	114.5	83
Florida	Solomon Patton	33	28	426	84.8%	12.9	21.0%	2	106.2	39.5%	113.9	84
Nevada	Brandon Wimberly	88	61	622	69.3%	7.1	32.2%	1	108.6	46.0%	113.7	85
Washington	Jaydon Mickens	53	45	542	84.9%	10.2	20.9%	1	111.5	47.7%	113.5	86
Baylor	Corey Coleman	24	13	244	54.2%	10.2	11.3%	4	209.9	46.9%	112.8	87
Central Florida	J.J. Worton	34	20	311	58.8%	9.1	16.5%	2	141.0	52.9%	112.7	88
Missouri	Marcus Lucas	60	39	447	65.0%	7.5	23.8%	1	123.9	51.1%	112.3	89
North Carolina	Quinshad Davis	42	30	415	71.4%	9.9	16.8%	2	127.9	52.7%	112.0	90
Illinois	Josh Ferguson	29	25	346	86.2%	11.9	13.7%	2	128.3	53.3%	111.6	91
Ball State	Jamill Smith	67	44	592	65.7%	8.8	19.5%	3	109.6	58.6%	110.5	92
Texas A&M	Derel Walker	41	30	414	73.2%	10.1	13.8%	3	149.9	52.8%	110.0	93
North Texas	Darnell Smith	63	46	518	73.0%	8.2	25.5%	1	108.1	48.3%	109.6	94
Arkansas State	Julian Jones	51	39	476	76.5%	9.3	24.4%	2	95.8	50.1%	109.3	95
South Alabama	Shavarez Smith	39	26	462	66.7%	11.8	17.6%	3	101.4	51.3%	108.3	96
Baylor	Levi Norwood	18	15	234	83.3%	13.0	8.5%	5	209.9	46.9%	108.1	97
Alabama	Kevin Norwood	26	23	348	88.5%	13.4	11.6%	3	135.6	51.5%	107.9	98
Fresno State	Isaiah Burse	64	52	533	81.3%	8.3	18.6%	3	99.9	69.5%	107.5	99
Boise State	Matt Miller	62	47	504	75.8%	8.1	22.5%	2	114.5	51.0%	107.0	100

For the most part, this passes the eyeball test. Baylor's Passing S&P+ is 21 percent higher than anybody else's right now, so it makes sense that the Bears would have a couple of (awesome) players near the top. And a lot of other names you'd expect -- Rashad Greene, Mike Evans, Brandin Cooks, LSU's Beckham-Landry duo, Jeremy Gallon, Tyler Lockett, Sammy Watkins, L'Damian Washington -- are all in the top 40. There are some surprises, of course, but I like that, too. I had no idea Arizona State's Jaelen Strong was putting together such good numbers; UCF's Breshad Perriman, too.

Anyway, again, this is an attempt to restart the conversation. In theory, plan to take a look at some year-to-year correlations (and, in theory, some college-to-pro numbers) to see how each factor should be weighted, but for now, this will do.

And yes, Baylor's top two receivers are each averaging more than 17 yards per target. That is completely insane.

This Week at SB Nation

Monday
In college football, pain is our family tie

Tuesday
The Numerical, Week 9: Florida State gets it over with quickly

Wednesday
Win projections: How the four-team SEC East race will likely play out
South Carolina 27, Missouri 24: Beyond the box score

Thursday
Win projections: Big Ten's other division title goes through Michigan State
Florida State is a huge favorite over Miami for a reason
Week 10 F/+ Picks

Football Outisders+ Perks & Features image

Comments

6 comments, Last at 01 Nov 2013, 10:21pm

#1 by Anonymously (not verified) // Oct 31, 2013 - 11:55pm

This is an intriguing stat, Bill. Thanks for this. Can you please add a simple twitter button to share this?

#2 by CBPodge // Nov 01, 2013 - 8:37am

This is definitely an interesting stat. I reckon it definitely needs some weightings assigned to the various ratings in it. But I think it needs a few more years' data (either going forward or back) before that happens. Because otherwise you'd probably end up weighting it so that you get the outcome that you want (best players at the top), rather than get the outcome that you want because of how it's weighted. If that makes sense.

And I don't care what its actually called: my head will always read RYPR as "Receiving Yards Per Reception".

#3 by Chase (not verified) // Nov 01, 2013 - 9:05am

Your formula no longer includes targets, which I would consider an improvement.

I might consider trying to do something like True Receiving Yards (linked to my name -- you would need to read part 1 first) for college football.

#4 by Chase (not verified) // Nov 01, 2013 - 10:47am

I also did something similar (link to my name again) for the NFL, putting two things on different axes: percentage of team targets and team ANY/A. I assume Passing S&P+ is similar enough to Team ANY/A, which means it's a measure of passing offense. Percentage of team targets was then my way of measuring how important a receiver was to the passing game.

One issue I didn't like was Michael Crabtree ranked so high, and that was because the 49ers didn't pass that often but had a great pass efficient rating, and when they did pass, it was to Crabtree. This effect is probably magnified in CFB (I'm thinking Georgia Tech some years), so it makes sense to instead adjust Team Passing prowess by a denominator that includes all plays, not just passing plays. I like the idea in theory, although I worry that it would shift things too much towards pass-happy teams (at least, for the NFL).

#5 by Kal // Nov 01, 2013 - 9:45pm

I think that's a good idea, but it also depends on what you're trying to demonstrate. Doing it against all plays shows how dominant a player can be relative to the overall team itself. Doing it against passing plays shows how important that player is to the success of the passing game. Both are useful. As an example - imagine taking out Tyler Eifert from the passing game from Stanford last year. Stanford had something like a 62/38 run/pass ratio, so in the first system Eifert wouldn't look like that big a deal - but if you just measure him by his passing, he's like half the value of the entire pass game for Stanford.

Both ways have value. You might use both on each player - showing how much production each person is worth as a percentage of the overall team's success AND showing how much production they're worth as part of the passing game.

#6 by Dan // Nov 01, 2013 - 10:21pm

I think that yards per team play, yards per team passing attempt, and yards per target all contain some independent information. Some styles of offense improve one of those stats at the expense of another - run-heavy hurts a receiver's yds/play but tends to help the other two, force-feeding one WR helps yds/play and yds/patt, but hurts yds/target, etc.

It's not very elegant, but one thing that I've done is to basically just average those 3 stats together. (First I took the square root of each of them, which prevents a player from being too great just on the basis of one of the three stats, and then I re-scaled each of them to be on the same scale.)