On consistency

"Consistency" is a word you hear bandied about in sports talk all the time. Managers and coaches want their players to be consistent. Announcers criticize a player by saying he's inconsistent. Fans can't understand why a guy can be great one month and lousy for the next. And a certain site noticed a certain broadcaster (and other people) using "consistency" so much, they incorporated it as one of their tags.

Viking fans, in particular, have noted Adrian Peterson's lack of consistency from game to game, or even from carry to carry. Many hope that the addition of a better quarterback, whether Brett Favre or improvement from Tarvaris Jackson or Sage Rosenfels, will help make Adrian Peterson more "consistent."

I just want him to be "better." And so should you.

Certainly, we're all a little frustrated when, say, AP rushes for 150 yards one game and 50 the next. But that still works out to 200 yards per two games, or 1,600 yards per season. Nobody should be upset with that kind of production from their team's running back.

"But why," you may ask, "does he only run for 50 yards? If he were more consistent, he'd be better!" We definitely have some reason to gripe when AP turns in a shoddy game and to wish that, if he's going to average 100 yards per game, that he should turn those 50-yard games into 100-yard games.

But have you ever said, "Gee, I with Adrian wouldn't run for 150 yards. He should just stop at 100"? I doubt it. "Consistent" does not equal "better." It only equals "the same" (or nearly so). A running back who averages 50 yards per game, every game, is very consistent. He's also a backup running back, at best. If Adrian ran for 50 one week and 200 the next, that would make him even more inconsistent than the 50/150 split. It would also make him better.

Fantasy football has fueled the desire for consistency, as evidenced by this article. Sure, you'd like the guy who can deliver 10 fantasy points every week, guaranteed, and you're frustrated when that guy just gets you 5 points. But do you complain when he runs for three touchdowns and scores 25? Do you wish he would have only scored 10, so he could be more consistent? Of course you don't. Similarly, would you rather have a baseball player who alternates hitting .250 and .350 every month, for a total average of .300, or would you rather have the guy who hits .275 every month? I'll take the former.

Now, football's an odd beast, because of the need to get 10 yards every four downs. 3.0 yards per carry is awful for a running back, but if you had a guy who could, guaranteed, net you three yards every time he touched the ball (and could avoid injury), he would be the most valuable player in the history of the league. That player doesn't exist, of course, so we have to make do with our "inconsistent" -- but generally better than 3.0 yards per carry -- players.

In the end, I think the desire for consistency boils down to our innate desire for predictability. We watch a Vikings game expecting Adrian Peterson to have a good day. When he only runs for 50 yards, we get frustrated and wonder why he put forth such an effort that wasn't in line with what we know to be his established ability -- in other words, "Why is he so inconsistent?" We never ask that question if he runs for 200 yards (which, as great as he is, is also out of line with his established ability). St. Louis Cardinals fans probably wonder the same thing when Albert Pujols goes 0-8 over two games, but are perfectly fine with seeing him go 4-4 with two home runs and 6 RBI in the third game. Consistency is nice, and it gives us a sense of reassurance in the ability of our favorite players. But by and large, you don't want your players to be consistent. You want them to be good.