Debate centering on the prognostic properties of wide receiver size will never subside.

Anybody skeptical of the empirical data that suggested wide receivers 6'2" or taller and at least 215 pounds and heavier can simply point out Pro-Football-Reference), then half of the top-14 in Reception NEP were six feet or shorter.

Does this change everything we know or thought we knew? Or did we never know anything at all?

A Study

I've been aware of the wide receiver size studies, but I decided to conduct my own analysis before reviewing others (which I know is backwards). I wanted to avoid any biases on how other studies were done or what they examined.

I gathered up data on the receivers who caught at least 32 passes in a season in the past three years (2012 to 2014). It's not deep historically, I know, but it yielded 245 unique seasons to examine. I also know 32 is an arbitrary number, but I figured 2.0 receptions per game wasn't much to ask. For each season, I gathered relevant NEP data and raw stats and found correlations between size -- height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) -- and these measures of production.

I also then examined the correlation between touchdowns scored and these size measurements as well.

The Results and Analysis

Naturally, there were a lot of results to examine, so I'll just have to hit you with a big long chart and then explain later. A correlation of 1 means that as one variable increases the other increases (or one decreases and the other decreases). A correlation of -1 indicates that one variable increases and the other decreases. A correlation of 0 means there's no relationship.

Again, this chart indicates correlations among 245 receivers who have caught at least 32 passes in a given year between 2012 and 2014.

I don't want to infodump this big chart on you and follow it up with more results, so I'll add analysis at this point, moving down the list.

Right out of the gate, these correlations are pretty mild. We don't see that height and touchdowns have a correlation of 0.90 or anything absurd, but given the information, we can still make some cautious assumptions.

Age is basically a non-factor, but the negative correlation does indicate that as age is lower, players are taller, meaning that young wideouts are likely to be taller than their older counterparts. Again, it's a very, very small relationship though.

Receptions, targets, Reception NEP, and Target NEP are most strongly correlated with weight -- not height (and especially not BMI). However, per-target NEP favors the taller receivers than the heavier ones, and that will become clearer by the end of the table.

Catch Rate, which is just receptions divided by targets, doesn't favor taller receivers, which makes sense anecdotally. 13 of the top 15 seasons in terms of Catch Rate came from players 6'0" or shorter, and the two that didn't came from players 6'1": Denny Carter found that the top-12 composite receiver from 2009 to 2013 would have been about 6'2" and 213 pounds.

Not much separates the players with 7-9 touchdowns from the 5-6 crowd, but it's pretty evident that bigger players score more often than their shorter, lighter counterparts.

Same Old Story

It's hard to deny that wide receiver height and weight correlates positively to on-field production. This doesn't mean that every tall prospect is a sure thing, and it doesn't mean that Antonio Brown isn't awesome.

These correlations were, in reality, quite mild, but examining the top tier of touchdown scorers and Reception NEP seasons, bigger is better -- or at least it has been for the past three seasons.

If you want to focus on the elite at the position, and if you want to invest a first-round fantasy pick on a wide receiver, your best bet is to go with the taller, heavier player than the shorter player.