Worst RBs/WRs with a 1000 yard season?

[Gary Najman]

Derrick Ward had 1,000 yards rushing with the defending Super Bowl Champion Giants in 2008 with a 5.6 ypc to lead the NFL. In his other 7 seasons combined he had a total of 1,600 rushing yards.

[Bryan]

Quick math, diff between 1,000 yd season in 1959 and today:

1959: Need an average 83.3 YPG in 12-game season
2023: Need an average 58.8 YPG in 17-game season

My Uncle Snuffy could probably run for 1,000 yds today (well, roll...he's in a wheelchair)

Which is why you don't see a lot of names in this thread pre-1960s ... few from 1960s
or 70s, either.

Didn't check but et 95%+ are from 1978 forward .. .when the extra games made the 1,000-yard
mark much more achievable. Since then 1,200-1,300-yard seasons are the "new" 1,000 yards
really.

Jim Brown said 1,000 yard rushing in a 14-game season is like walking backward. 1,000 yards
in a 16 game season isn't worth talking about.

I never knew what he meant by walking backwards ... I guess it's hard but not that hard. But his
point was that a 12-game season was the standard to him.

The analogy always escaped me ... other than the "isn't worth talking about." That I understood.

Somewhat tangentially related, I never understood the outcry when the MLB commissioner wanted to put an asterisk next to Roger Maris' record. Maris had 8 additional scheduled games to set the record. Isn't that like an uncontestable fact? Cumulative records are easier to set when you have more games?

[Sonny9]

Ladell Betts had 1154 in 2006 when Portis went down. Had 771 in his last 6 games. 371 was his next highest. Almost 800 yards less. He was decent back though

[conace21]

Quick math, diff between 1,000 yd season in 1959 and today:

1959: Need an average 83.3 YPG in 12-game season
2023: Need an average 58.8 YPG in 17-game season

My Uncle Snuffy could probably run for 1,000 yds today (well, roll...he's in a wheelchair)

Which is why you don't see a lot of names in this thread pre-1960s ... few from 1960s
or 70s, either.

Didn't check but et 95%+ are from 1978 forward .. .when the extra games made the 1,000-yard
mark much more achievable. Since then 1,200-1,300-yard seasons are the "new" 1,000 yards
really.

Jim Brown said 1,000 yard rushing in a 14-game season is like walking backward. 1,000 yards
in a 16 game season isn't worth talking about.

I never knew what he meant by walking backwards ... I guess it's hard but not that hard. But his
point was that a 12-game season was the standard to him.

The analogy always escaped me ... other than the "isn't worth talking about." That I understood.

Somewhat tangentially related, I never understood the outcry when the MLB commissioner wanted to put an asterisk next to Roger Maris' record. Maris had 8 additional scheduled games to set the record. Isn't that like an uncontestable fact? Cumulative records are easier to set when you have more games?

There was never an asterisk next to Roger Maris and his 61 home runs. There were simply separate records listed. Most HR in a 154 game season and most HR in a 162 season. I recall seeing this in an old record book.

It's true that Maris had 8 more scheduled games than Ruth, but he actually had fewer appearances at the plate. It's also true that the Commissioner in 1961 was Ford Frick, the Babe's former ghostwriter. It's also true that the Babe didn't play against any black players when he hit 60 home runs in 1927.

[JohnTurney]

There was never an asterisk next to Roger Maris and his 61 home runs. There were simply separate records listed. Most HR in a 154 game season and most HR in a 162 season. I recall seeing this in an old record book.

It's true that Maris had 8 more scheduled games than Ruth, but he actually had fewer appearances at the plate. It's also true that the Commissioner in 1961 was Ford Frick, the Babe's former ghostwriter. It's also true that the Babe didn't play against any black players when he hit 60 home runs in 1927.

Yes you are right, the asterisk was never official it was cultural shorthand used by writers for decades to describe the two records. Frick opined there should be a "mark" to denote the differences. "Any player who may hit more than 60 home runs during his club’s first 154 games would be recognized as having established a new record. However, if the player does not hit more than 60 until after his club has played 154 games, there would have to be some distinctive mark in the record books to show that Babe Ruth’s record was set under a 154-game schedule and the total of more than 60 was compiled while a 162-game schedule was in effect."

Frick claimed the idea came from Dick Young ... that it was not his he just said "mark"

Back then there were no official baseball record books or official encyclopedias. Sporting News or anyone could publish records yearly, or all time records, whatever. How they displayed it was up to them. In the Almanacs, NEA and AP what they did to denote the two records there was an asterisk.

But the separate records, depending on the book had an asterisk, though I have not looked at all the variations (I had just one or two) for football I have the Total Football, ESPN, and a couple of others and updates to them. But for baseball for all I know they had half a dozen "record books".

So year, you're right, the asterisk was not official or anything is was just the spirit of Frick's idea to have separate records. And glad you pointed out Frick's dog in the fight. He was a Babe fan and his comments read as though dripping with favoritism.

The practical stuff...plate appearances and level of competition -- those, to me, are just usual pitfalls of records in about every sport with long history.

My thoughts are still that with 17-game season that NFL records should be on a per scheduled game basis the old Bob Carroll idea from Hidden game in the late 1980s.

Baseball? I have not looked at a baseball record book in forever so don't know what they do. Football, with the R&FB there is officialness but there are issues they could at least address and say what they won't change them.

[Bryan]

It's also true that the Babe didn't play against any black players when he hit 60 home runs in 1927.

That particular thing is also a 'non-starter' for me in relation to baseball. You don't really play against individual players in baseball. Its not like Babe Ruth hits the ball and then gets tackled by Bill Madlock. Or Babe Ruth launches a home run and Garry Maddox runs into the stands to catch the ball for an out. The fact that Babe Ruth didn't play against black players doesn't diminish his achievements, IMO. And in direct relation to Roger Maris, I would be interested in seeing how many black pitchers Maris faced in 1961.

[conace21]

It's also true that the Babe didn't play against any black players when he hit 60 home runs in 1927.

That particular thing is also a 'non-starter' for me in relation to baseball. You don't really play against individual players in baseball. Its not like Babe Ruth hits the ball and then gets tackled by Bill Madlock. Or Babe Ruth launches a home run and Garry Maddox runs into the stands to catch the ball for an out. The fact that Babe Ruth didn't play against black players doesn't diminish his achievements, IMO. And in direct relation to Roger Maris, I would be interested in seeing how many black pitchers Maris faced in 1961.

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 - he didn't play night games or have to fly to the west coast. Maris had advantages too - expansion diluted the league's talent, and he had 8 extra games. But in the end, a season is a season. It was Maris who held the record for most HR's in a season. If someone wants to argue that Babe's 1927 season is more impressive, that's fine, and I'd probably agree. I've never heard about any talk of separate records when the season went from 140 games to 154 in the early 20th century.

[rhickok1109]

It's also true that the Babe didn't play against any black players when he hit 60 home runs in 1927.

That particular thing is also a 'non-starter' for me in relation to baseball. You don't really play against individual players in baseball. Its not like Babe Ruth hits the ball and then gets tackled by Bill Madlock. Or Babe Ruth launches a home run and Garry Maddox runs into the stands to catch the ball for an out. The fact that Babe Ruth didn't play against black players doesn't diminish his achievements, IMO. And in direct relation to Roger Maris, I would be interested in seeing how many black pitchers Maris faced in 1961.

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 - he didn't play night games or have to fly to the west coast. Maris had advantages too - expansion diluted the league's talent, and he had 8 extra games. But in the end, a season is a season. It was Maris who held the record for most HR's in a season. If someone wants to argue that Babe's 1927 season is more impressive, that's fine, and I'd probably agree. I've never heard about any talk of separate records when the season went from 140 games to 154 in the early 20th century.
[/quote]
How did expansion dilute talent? The population of the U.S. increased by more than 50% from 1927 to 1961 and the number of MLB teams increased by 25%. Not to mention the fact that Black and Hispanic players entered the talent pool in the meantime.

[sluggermatt15]

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.

[JuggernautJ]

Way back when... when he was on Monday Night Football, OJ had an interesting suggestion...
That it was time for the NFL to adopt the metric system and go from yards to meters.

I am pretty sure (and if I recall correctly) that that idea was to preserve his record as the only 2,000 yard rusher in NFL history.
It won't be happening anytime in the near future and I don't particularly agree with it (talk about compounding the problems of comparing across eras) but it is an interesting proposal to deal with the discrepancies of 10, 12 and even 14 game seasons vs. 16 and 17 games seasons.


10 meters = 10.931 yards so that would increase the distance required for a first down (assuming the number 10 was kept) by almost 10% which might, in an interesting way, help balance the offense vs defense equation a bit.

Again, it almost certainly won't happen in our (well, my) lifetimes but it is interesting to consider how this proposal would effect the game.