Sometimes sports statisticians find new measurements that shed light on players in ways that old numbers never did.

Sometimes they try a little too hard.

The latter happened today to KC Joyner, who calls himself the Football Scientist, when he tried to convince himself that Chicago Bears running back Matt Forte “stacks up evenly with” the Minnesota Vikings’ Adrian Peterson.

Now, are there things Forte does better than Peterson? Yes. He is a better receiver out of the backfield. Forte has 51, 57 and 63 catches in his three seasons. Peterson is not terrible catching the ball, with 119 catches in four years, but I would give the Bear the nod in that area.

I’m not an expert in pass blocking either, but the Vikings routinely remove Peterson from games on third downs. Joyner claims Forte is a better blocker. Some seem to agree he prevented Jay Cutler from getting killed at times. I haven’t seen enough to judge so I’ll concede the point (though at least some seem to feel Forte and his fellow backs could improve in this area).

But when it comes to what running backs do the most and what they will primarily be judged upon – which is running the ball – calling Forte an equal to Peterson is, at best, a stretch and at worst ridiculous. Forte averaged 4.5 yards per carry last season, the first of his three years in the league he has been above 4.0. Peterson has not averaged fewer than 4.4 yards per carry in his four seasons.

Peterson has averaged 1,738 yards rushing and receiving per season. Forte averages 1,577 over his three. Peterson averages 1,446 yards rushing per season. Forte averages 1,079.

Peterson is a four time pro bowl selection and a two time first-team All Pro selection. Forte … isn’t.

Peterson has 52 touchdowns rushing in four seasons and another two receiving. Forte has 25 total, only 18 on the ground in his three.

Joyner gives Forte credit for hanging onto the ball better than Peterson too. Well, that argument might have held water in past years (though where does the 40-50 yards per fumble stat he sites come from? I’ve never heard it). But those numbers are skewed by one season – Forte actually had three fumbles in 2010 to Peterson’s one and in the last two seasons, Peterson has fumbled just one time more than Forte, according to Pro Football Reference.

Furthermore, Joyner’s assessment of Forte as a “jack of all trades” is severely flawed because of how poorly Forte performs in short yardage and near the goal line.

And that is why I would take Peterson over Forte and I believe 99 out of 100 coaches, general managers and league executives would as well.

These guys are paid to score touchdowns. And the best running backs take it up a notch when they get in scoring territory. It’s a strength of Peterson’s. It’s, ahem, not Matt’s Forte.

In 2009 he ranked 102nd in the NFL in goal-to-go situations, scoring on three of 33 opportunities. He was often replaced by Chester Taylor in 2010 because his failings in that area of his game continued — even though Taylor had a dismal season.

If you don’t believe me, Forte’s failings in this area are documented here in this foxsports.com story.

And here in this Yahoo! Sports story.

And here at this Chicago Breaking Sports story.

Nobody would ever say short yardage and goal line carries are a weakness in Peterson’s game. Joyner points out that the Bears have had a poor offensive line the last few years. But Pro Football Focus’ Mike Clay, who beat me to the rebuttal of Joyner’s story, points out that it isn’t like the Vikings have been running out a star-studded run blocking offensive line the last couple years either. Minnesota’s line might have bigger names, but it has been an injury-prone, aging, underachieving unit, particularly in 2010.

Bottom line? I’m not in any way saying Forte is a bad running back. After his 2009 season I thought he might have been, but he exceeded my expectations and clearly proved me wrong.

His first season was very promising, but his numbers were somewhat inflated by a couple big statistical games. His second was less than ordinary. But Forte does appear to have hit his stride in the Mike Martz system Chicago runs now. He is a solid player. But I could name six to 10 backs I would want before him. Others have. And yes, one of them would be Peterson.

Actually, if you put them on the same team, they would be a heckuva tandem. But Peterson would be the first and second down back and the guy who got the call at the stripe. Forte would be the guy who came in on third downs to catch passes and to pick up the blitz.

Forte also has proven more than capable of being the top back in a rotation on a good team. But Adrian Peterson is one of the best two or three running backs in the league by almost all accounts. Forte has not yet done enough to get his name mentioned in that class. The numbers don’t say so and the video doesn’t say so. It simply does not pass the smell test.

And it’s not even close.