Pro Football Reference’s Approximate Value (AV) was designed to condense a player’s contributions into a single number, drawing on Pro Bowl selections, Associated Press All‑Pro honors, NFL All‑Decade recognitions and raw statistics. The metric attempts to balance accolades with performance, but its methodology has been questioned for decades.
A Legacy Metric in Question
Paul Hornung’s AV score of 49 stands in stark contrast to his Hall of Fame monitor score of 68.63, which itself falls short of the average 105.61 recorded for Hall of Fame running backs. Notably, the AV calculation omits his passing contributions, including a 51‑yard touchdown pass, a 65‑yard strike and a 41‑yard halfback option touchdown, leaving a portion of his offensive impact unmeasured.
The system also awards injury‑related bonuses inconsistently; players such as Terrell Davis and Gale Sayers have benefited from extra points for shortened careers, while Hornung, who missed significant playing time due to injuries over nine seasons, received none. This disparity raises questions about how the AV model accounts for the true cost of injury on a player’s legacy.
Historical context further complicates the picture. The Pro Bowl voting process has shifted from coach recommendations and newspaper editors to a broader player‑driven ballot, and the NFL’s Western Conference dominated the league from 1957 to 1969, winning 11 titles with a .639 winning percentage against Eastern opponents. Ray Nitschke, a Hall of Fame linebacker, managed only a single Pro Bowl selection, a testament to the era’s limited positional clarity. Vince Lombardi’s famed offense, especially the ‘Red Right 49’ sweep, leaned heavily on Hornung’s dual threat as a runner and blocker, underscoring how the AV metric may undervalue players whose value is embedded in scheme rather than raw statistics.
Modern medical advances that could have extended the careers of pioneers like Hornung and Dan Currie are not reflected in AV calculations, which are anchored in historical data. Consequently, while the metric offers a convenient snapshot, its blend of accolades, statistics and era‑specific biases may not faithfully represent player impact, particularly for those whose careers were shaped by injury, evolving game dynamics, or unique offensive roles.