*Analyzing activity across positions

[JuOSu]

Because of the argument in regards to making Offensive Line not playable anymore, because supposedly it is not fun and many people stop being active, I thought I would check if that claim is correct since no one actually bothers to check if it is correct, they just blindly say things.

Here are totals for every position based on the NSFL rosters update page. There may be one or two mistakes, but most is pretty clear. I defined middle as someone who has updated in the last two to three weeks and often before then but not this current week:

QB:

Active: 6
Middle: 1
Inactive: 5

RB:

Active: 7
Middle: 2
Inactive: 10

WR:

Active: 17
Middle: 1
Inactive: 11

TE:

Active: 6
Middle: 1
Inactive: 9

OL:

Active: 16
Middle: 5
Inactive: 20

DL:

Active: 13
Middle: 2
Inactive: 22

LB:

Active: 11
Middle: 3
Inactive: 16

CB:

Active: 12
Middle: 1
Inactive: 14

S:

Active: 8
Middle: 1
Inactive: 10

K/P:

Active: 4
Middle:
Inactive: 5

If we consider middle to be null for this statistics, here are the percentages from most active to most inactive:

WR: 60%
QB: 55%
CB: 46%
OL: 44%
S: 44%
K: 44%
RB: 41%
TE: 40%
LB: 40%
DL: 37%

With the exception of Wide Receiver and Quarterback, every position is under 50% activity rate. Offensive Line is actually fairly near the top, which is surprising given the large number of players needed to fill a roster with (40 total) while a position like Kicker only needs 8. Positions like Running Back, Tight End, Linebacker and Defensive Line are all less active than Offensive Line.

Sure, one can argue that other positions would start being more active if we eliminate Offensive Line. But why eliminate offensive line and not defensive line based on these numbers? Just cause someone somewhere thinks that Offensive Line makes people go inactive more often, which clearly is not the case, despite all the OL men that switched positions to it in order to play and then never logged on again. And still OL is more active than some other positions.

Yes, other positions will be more active if the active OL men are forced to switch, but I believe that is a drastically wrong move and I pinpointed here why. The fact of the matter is, Offensive line does not appear to be any less fun or keep people active or inactive as other positions.

GRADED

[sapp2013]

I think you should look at the required amount at each position. I only looked at kicker and o line, but 16/40 = 40% activity and 4/8 = 50% activity. I'm at work so I can't do the calculations right now, but it seems that o line would be low in that aspect.

[JuOSu]

I think you should look at the required amount at each position. I only looked at kicker and o line,  but 16/40 = 40% activity and 4/8 = 50% activity. I'm at work so I can't do the calculations right now, but it seems that o line would be low in that aspect.

In that case DL is even worse than in my calculations. At the very least you need 39, but many teams use four DL, so lets say 40-45.

13/40 = 32%

13/45 = 29%

[sapp2013]

In that case DL is even worse than in my calculations. At the very least you need 39, but many teams use four DL, so lets say 40-45.

13/40 = 32%

13/45 = 29%

There is an argument for o line and DL, but not any other position.

Edit: hold up, 4 x 8 = 24, so 13/24. Argument isn't valid
Edit 2: 4 x 8 is in fact 32, 13/32 = 40.625%, on par with O line

[HalfEatenOnionBagel]

I think the big problem is that compared to other positions, there are more offensive linemen positions to fill than any other position in the league. There clearly has been a drop-off in the number of people creating offensive linemen that are joining the league unlike other positions that have new players creating them which can fill spots occupied by inactives. There's a healthy turnover. But I think the biggest problem is the impact that having inactive linemen or bots is having on the game. At least to me it seems like you have to have a higher amount of TPE to be effective as an OL compared to other positions. In addition to this, having just one or even two good OL does very little for your team. Look at how bad Liberty was at giving up sacks even though I didn't give up any all year. At other positions you can have some inactives mixed in and it works out just fine, but on offensive line that isn't the case at all; you can't get by having just one or two good ones.

I also think if you asked most offensive linemen, myself included, they were considering making a different position but chose OL because it was a need. We're some of the most dedicated people to making the league run well and that's why the best of us are still very active relative to other positions.

[Molarpistols]

The numbers do show that there is a high-activity level amongst OL, but they don't look into the reasons why that happens.

Many of the active OL are either GM'ing their teams or are at least part of that team's leadership. In the discussion thread at least half of those active linemen have said they'd rather play something else, and that they're doing OL to help their team.

Counting inactives and actives together for OL and they still don't cover the amount of OL positions available in the whole league. They barely cover what's available in the NSFL alone. I think that's a pretty telling sign that people don't see it as a fun position. While OL has the most total positions available of any one position, I don't know that there other positions suffering from that.

I'm on mobile so I don't have the motivation to look up the stats, but I'd be very interested to see the the percentages for number of active players by position divided by total number of that position available in the NSFL (8 teams)

**edit** seems i type too slow on mobile and people already made my arguments pretty much...

[JuOSu]

There is an argument for o line and DL, but not any other position.

Edit: hold up, 4 x 8 = 24, so 13/24. Argument isn't valid

Haha I not sure what I was calculating there, my mistake.

[HalfEatenOnionBagel]

There is an argument for o line and DL, but not any other position.

Edit: hold up, 4 x 8 = 24, so 13/24. Argument isn't valid

Wait 4 x 8 = 32

[sapp2013]

Wait 4 x 8 = 32

Lol my b. I never make these mistakes, but here we are. On par with o line

[tlk742]

Lol my b. I never make these mistakes, but here we are. On par with o line

SHOES ON THE OTHER FOOT NOW!

but if that's the case it is 41%

Buit here's the question, can we break it down by DE and DT?

Here's the real question to active linemen, if you could switch to a different position at no penalty, would you?