« Very good sentences | Main | Sentences to ponder »
NFL Player IQ by Position Played
"The closer you are to the ball, the higher your score."
Details here and here. Hat tip to Kottke.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on July 18, 2008 at 02:59 PM in Sports | Permalink
Comments
No, that's not quite the highest correlation involving NFL players' Wonderlic IQ test scores. Let's just say there's a high correlation between the speed required to play the position and the average Wonderlic score.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jul 18, 2008 3:11:22 PM
No, that's not quite the highest correlation involving NFL players' Wonderlic IQ test scores. Let's just say there's a high correlation between the speed required to play the position and the average Wonderlic score.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jul 18, 2008 3:11:53 PM
Why do offensive lineman have distinctly higher IQ's the other offensive players while the entire defensive side is fairly equitable? I guess the smarter players (physical skills held constant) are recruited for offense. And no intragroup dispersion within defense? Very strange.
Posted by: at Jul 18, 2008 3:22:49 PM
Wow, as an aspiring economist and huge NFL fan, this is really interesting stuff.
I think the interpretation give on the link http://benfry.com/writing/archives/147
is very close to being correct.
It was surprising at first to see such uniform scores on the defense and such variant scores on the offense. But upon reflection it makes total sense if viewed as optimal specialization.
The running backs and wide receivers are the "dumbest" exactly because those positions REQUIRE the least intelligence. If you play those positions you literally have to no nothing about what the other players are doing in order to do your job.
The quarterbacks has to know what his backs and receivers are doing, as well as, the defensive secondary. Hence the NEED for higher intelligence.
The offensive line must move as one cohesive unit to respond to all possible blitz packages by the defense. Also requiring a relatively high degree of intelligence.
The defense in general receives plays too by the defensive coaches, while these plays are much less prescriptive than QB plays they still require some group coordination and some recognition of offensive options.
The uniformity in defensive scores comes from the need for the defense to play in a scheme together and defenses are as vulnerable as the weak link, hence the need to eliminate the super low scores.
Posted by: Dan Karney at Jul 18, 2008 3:25:50 PM
Not shown on this chart are two positions that are very near the top in average IQ: punter and placekicker.
Any theories on why that is?
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jul 18, 2008 3:27:43 PM
Placekicker and punter with higher IQ: Let's just say they figured out early on that they could play in the NFL without risking serious injury all the time by specializing in what they do. That's got to be worth something.
Posted by: Alex at Jul 18, 2008 3:31:30 PM
Excluding punters/kickers, I'd say the Wonderlic averages just reflect how much play/formation memorization each position requires.
QB, the most, followed by the offensive line. Next, running backs and wide receivers.
On the defensive side, there are no plays, only formations, and presumably they all have to memorize the same number of formations, so they all score the same.
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Jul 18, 2008 3:33:01 PM
So, Dan Karney, why are placekickers and punters so smart? They just do the same thing over and over again.
The tailbacks have to instantly evaluate a seething mass of players and pick a hole. That's why they line up so far behind the line of scrimmage -- to give them time to evaluate and decide. Yet, they average low scores, just like the cornerbacks.
Hmmhmmhm, what could there possibly be in common between NFL starting tailbacks and NFL starting cornerbacks. It's one of those facts that never gets mentioned in the newspapers, but you can see it with your own lying eyes.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jul 18, 2008 3:34:44 PM
George Orwell said:
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jul 18, 2008 3:36:47 PM
Here's another list from a few years ago -- the lists always vary, but the basic pattern is the same:
Paul D. Zimmerman, Sports Illustrated's renowned gridiron guru, reported the following average IQ scores for certain positions among top college players invited by the NFL to the annual scouting combine:
Offensive tackles: 112
Centers: 110
Quarterbacks: 108
Guards: 106
Tight Ends: 104
Safeties: 98
Middle linebackers: 98
Cornerbacks: 96
Wide receivers: 94
Fullbacks: 94
Halfbacks: 92
So, what's the basic pattern?
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jul 18, 2008 3:39:40 PM
In response the Steve Sailer:
In my opinion, kickers play a different game compared to the rest and thus cannot be compared.
It is generally believed that RBs run on instinct and athletic ability, if you have to "think" about where you are going to make your cut, you are already tackled.
Looking at the numbers, CBs have higher scores that RBs.
Posted by: Dan Karney at Jul 18, 2008 3:46:50 PM
Okay, let me see if I can give you guys a hint:
In many recent years, all 32 starting NFL tailbacks and all 64 starting NFL cornerbacks have had something in common. In contrast, just about all 32 NFL punters and nearly all 32 NFL placekickers have something similar but different in common.
In contrast, offensive linemen and quarterbacks don't have this in common.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jul 18, 2008 3:53:47 PM
Could the same reason that there are test score differences between races be the explanation for the position/test score correlation. QB, offensive line, tight end tend to be less black players as a percentage relative to the other positions listed by above. Or am I mistaken on the latter point?
Posted by: Paul at Jul 18, 2008 3:53:52 PM
What's the error on this measurement method? Is it possible that the variations in IQ by position are statistical fluctuations? Sure, Offensive Tackles appear to be smarter, but by how many sigma?
Posted by: Ed at Jul 18, 2008 4:05:47 PM
@Steve Sailer
While not getting paid as much as the other skill players, you do get paid enough that you lead a pretty comfortable lifestyle.
If you are very good at it your career will last longer than most other skill positions...or even if it doesn't you won't walk away with lingering physical problems.
You probably (in most cases) were never assured that you would be able to play at the next level, so you actually studied in high school/college and kept your brain sharp.
Sounds pretty smart to me.
Posted by: JohnZ at Jul 18, 2008 4:08:35 PM
re: low running back and wide receiver scores. I wonder if this is something akin to why pitchers tend not to be good hitters even in the NL. There are several reasons but the biggest one is that if you're a good pitcher, teams will tolerate your being a less rounded player than at any other position because you benefit the team so much even if you're a lousy hitter.
Similarly, if someone is a really athletic wide receiver or running back, that makes up for a lot of not being the sharpest tool in the shed (which probably also correlates to problematic off-field behavior).
Not sure I understand though why offense line > defense line AND linebackers. (But maybe that's just because I most follow the NE Patriots who put a lot of emphasis on smart linebacking.)
Posted by: Gordon Haff at Jul 18, 2008 4:08:56 PM
Paul, you walked right into Sailer's trap, congrats. And here I thought we all had a tacit agreement not to encourage his race-baiting.
"Hmmhmmhm, what could there possibly be in common between NFL starting tailbacks and NFL starting cornerbacks. It's one of those facts that never gets mentioned in the newspapers, but you can see it with your own lying eyes."
Most of them went to Notre Dame or Miami? Just a guess.
Also, I'm not sure most offensive linemen are white.
Posted by: meter at Jul 18, 2008 4:11:03 PM
Dan Karney says: "The running backs and wide receivers are the 'dumbest' exactly because those positions REQUIRE the least intelligence. If you play those positions you literally have to no nothing about what the other players are doing in order to do your job."
This is false. Many routes that wide receivers run are not fixed but defense dependent. The wide receiver has to read the defense to figure out what route to run, and often this needs to be done in real time, as the defense may obfuscate their play until after the ball has been snapped. Running backs must also read the defense in real time, both when they have the ball and when they have to block. Not to mention the fact that play books are enormous.
I also don't see how the offensive line's need to work together as a "cohesive unit" would require a greater-than-average IQ.
Posted by: Michael at Jul 18, 2008 4:12:59 PM
Ed asks:
"What's the error on this measurement method? Is it possible that the variations in IQ by position are statistical fluctuations?"
I've been following this the whole decade and have seen reports from various years. They always vary somewhat, but the basic pattern is the same of which positions average the highest and which the lowest.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jul 18, 2008 4:15:10 PM
Meter-
One can note the correlation between race and score without concluding the relationship is causal.
Posted by: Paul at Jul 18, 2008 4:15:23 PM
OK, so on the correlation front shall we say that the laziest/least athletically talented people (those required to move the least) are the ones with the highest IQs?
Posted by: meter at Jul 18, 2008 4:22:41 PM
But the percentage of white QBs is higher than that of the O-Line yet tackles score best and linemen are about equal.
Many who have played the game have noted that offensive line requires the most thinking of anywhere on the field, particularly the relative impact of intelligence vs talent.
Posted by: eccdogg at Jul 18, 2008 4:25:07 PM
One thing to keep in mind is that top football players average pretty decent IQ scores, maybe 4-7 points higher than their demographic groups. So, the stereotype of the dumb jock is a relative, not an absolute, one. It originates in comparing college football players to the typical student at a football powerhouse school. Most big time football schools are state flagship universities with average SAT scores for freshmen in the 1100 to 1300 range (out of 400 to 1600).
A couple of caveats -- the reported numbers may be, in some cases, the highest score attained on multiple tries at the Wonderlic. Another is that some football prospects study for the Wonderlic test, which might boost their scores a few points. And, finally, there are a few suspicious cases of gigantic increases in scores from first to second tries at the test, which raise concerns that, with millions of dollars at stake, a player's agent might have nefariously worked some trick.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jul 18, 2008 4:29:13 PM
One important factor is that mental mistakes made by QB's and OL are very easy to measure. If you make a mental screw up, EVERYONE sees it and recognizes it for what it is. It is easy to point to mental mistakes if the QB misreads a defense and throws a pick or the weak side offensive tackle blocks the wrong guy and gives up a sack. For other positions, the line between a mistake being mental and just physically outmatched can be a little more blurry.
Posted by: brent at Jul 18, 2008 4:31:21 PM
Holding and tackling the defense without it appearing to be holding and tackling takes a lot of intelligence.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Jul 18, 2008 4:42:51 PM
