Background and MethodThis article will be the start of an exploration into the question of whether or not height is truly as important of an attribute as most believe it to be. A recent opinion of the importance of height at TE has spurred me to investigate this matter, but really the question has been around for a long time. I know of at least one GM who discounts height at WR completely, while many consider it as part of the equation, but not any more than any other attribute. Others, myself included, prioritize it at some positions and consider it of importance almost across the board.
For this individual experiment, I ran 20 simulations of the exact same game between the Atlanta Falcons and the Carolina Panthers (Week 4 of this upcoming season), with the only difference being the height of 7 individual players. In 10 simulations the game was run with the exact attributes from the most recent file, while in the other 10 the height of those 7 players was modified - some taller, some shorter. I all simulations the same depth chart and playbooks were used (STL 50/50, Cover 2 50/50). The 7 players who were used in the experiment were Panthers players WR Steve Smith (5'9"/6'3"), WR Andre Davis (6'1"/5'9"), and WR Peerless Price (5'11"/6'4") and Falcons players WR Brian Finneran (6'5"/5'10"), WR Peter Warrick (5'11"/6'6"), WR Tim Dwight (5'8"/6'2"), and TE Tony Gonzalez (6'5"/6'1"). The results are summarized below.
Results
The raw data can be viewed at the following links for the
baseline simulations and the
experimental simulations
As can be seen above, the results are a bit of a mixed bag.
Overall, just by looking at the data we can tell that increased height did have a positive effect on player statistics. The taller versions of players averaged .8 receptions, 20.3 yards, and .2 TDs more per game than their shorter counterparts. If we extrapolate that over the 70 player games played (7 players x 10 games for each version), that adds up to a total of 56 receptions, 1,421 yards, and 14 touchdowns. However, if we take a closer look, we realize that isn't the whole story.
We can see that for players such as TE Tony Gonzalez, WR Andre Davis, and WR Peter Warrick the increased height uniformly increased their production. The taller version of those players had better metrics in every single category compared to the shorter version of themselves. For a player like Gonzalez, his taller (normal) version averaged twice as many yards and TDs than did his 6'1" version. The results were less significant for Davis and Warrick, but still positive across the board. The interesting thing is that these players share something in common - they weren't listed as the #2 or #3 WR on the depth chart. While unfortunately we did not build a TE comparison for Gonzalez into the experimental design, we do know that both Davis and Warrick were the #1 WRs on the depth chart for their teams, meaning that the results show that for the #1 WRs an increase in height meant an increase in height across the board.
When we move on to other positions, we see that is not the case. For the #2 WRs - Brian Finneran and Steve Smith - both players saw an increase in TDs (double for Smith) and yards, but a decrease in the number of receptions per game. Interestingly enough these are the only two players in the experiment to see these results.
Finally, we have the #3 or slot receivers. In all but one case - receptions for WR Tim Dwight - these wide receivers performed better overall as the shorter versions of themselves. The results were overwhelmingly significant for Price, who more than doubled his touchdowns and almost doubled his receptions as a 5'11" player versus 6'4", while Dwight was more comparable across both incarnations.
If we take a look at the averages of these positions as a whole, we will see that the results stand up. #1 WRs were better across the board as height increased, #2 WRs were better in yards and TDs but not receptions, and #3 WRs on average performed better when shorter.
Finally, the last table gives a glimpse of the stats by position regardless of height. You can see that the #1 WRs easily performed the best, which is interesting considering I don't think they were clearly the most talented position group.
DiscussionI will kick off the discussion of this article by saying I fully realize its limitations. This was only a total of 20 simulations, and only between 2 teams and 7 players. Obviously, a much larger sample size is needed to draw any real conclusions. And admittedly the height changes were done mostly on a whim - some players saw less of a change in height than others, with no real logic behind it. Still, I though this would be a good enough sized experiment to create some preliminary results and and a discussion on the issue.
One of the most glaring results to me is that of the slot WRs, who performed better when shorter. What is the reason for this? Is being short really an advantage, or is something else at work here? Is it possible that the slot WRs saw less targets due to the other WRs being better at the same time? I don't think that's the case, as the most significant difference came in WR Peerless Price, who saw his most success in the experimental simulations when he was 5'11". Yes, Steve Smith was 6'3" then, but Smith didn't exactly light the world on fire as a tall WR here. In fact it was Andre Davis who stole the show as a 5'9" version of himself, clearly not an improvement by conventional wisdom.
Another thing that shocked me was the performance of WR Brian Finneran as a 5'10" player. The Panthers we chosen because Steve Smith is a great example of success from a 5'9" player, but I also chose the Falcons because a guy like Finneran stood out to me when going over the league leaders in receiving metrics. Surely a guy with 87 SPD, 84 AGI, and 85 ACC was successful because of his 6'5" height, right? While the results show he was more successful as a 6'5" player, they also show a great deal of success when he was a full 7" shorter as a 5'10" player. In fact, he averaged 1.5 more receptions per game while only roughly 4 less yards and .1 less receptions per game. That is pretty crazy from my point of view, and definitely warrants more investigation.
Clearly, height did make somewhat of a difference. But given the drastic swings incorporated, wouldn't most of us have expected a greater disparity in the results? I sure would have thought so. So while height probably does play a factor, clearly players can reach great heights without it (see what I did there? :D)
One final thing that caught my attention is the clear differences in statistics between #1, #2, and #3 WRs. #1 WRs were by far the most successful, followed by #2 WRs, and with slot WRs bring up the rear. However while #2 and #1 WRs tracked each other pretty similarly, WR Peerless Price was a much better slot WR than WR Tim Dwight. Was this because the Panthers tended to have more success, or was this the reason the Panthers had more success? It's an interesting question. But even more interesting is how significant the effect of where a player is placed on the depth has on their success. We all know the conventional wisdom that says #2 WRs have the most success in Madden, but there is a nuance a lot of people claim that this really depends on the playbook. Can you line a 87 SPD, 5'10" WR like Finneran at the #1 spot and get the same results as a 95 SPD, 6'6" Peter Warrick? Is it possible that the "stud" WRs perform the best because GMs perceive them as so and play them in the most favorable slots? This is going to be the subject of my future experiments, and the reason this article is titled #1.0.
For now, feel free to share your thoughts in the discussion below. Do these results surprise you, or have you been the one banging the drum about this the whole time? Do you believe in height at WR or TE? Are other attributes more important? Or is the system and QB that really matter? I'd love the hear everyone's thoughts on this.
