The Cowboys problem is not that Complicated

[Boys122]

There's one name that can sum this thread up, and that's Jerruh Jones.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

...I find is funny that coaches around the league will use a 1st rd pick on a RB and if they felt it did not contribute to winning they would not do it. Teams would not be handing the ball off 25 to 30 times a game if it did not contribute.

Again, it's not that the running game isn't important. It's that running it effectively doesn't make you statistically much more likely to win that running it ineffectively.

Trying to think of examples of competitive teams who've spent a top pick on a running back in recent drafts where it's worked out. It's a pretty thin list: Trent Richardson, Doug Martin, Mark Ingram, CJ Spiller, Ryan Matthews, Jahvid Best, Knowshow Moreno, Donald Brown, Darren McFadden, Jonathan Stewart, F Jones, Mendenhall, Johnson.

Of the picks with any time in the league, only those 2008 guys have been all that notable so far, and even that draft had Ray Rice, Jamaal Charles, Matt Forte and Tashard Choice who were arguably better picks in later rounds.

Again, running the ball is important because it's necessary for every team to get into enough convertible passing situations in terms of downs and distances. It's obviously important in goal line and short yardage situations, because it gives you points or the opportunity to score more points. Situationally, it's important because it can allow you to stay out of situations where you can't pass effectively. It's just that being able to do it better than the other guy doesn't give you a significant competitive advantage.

[Outlaw Heroes]

Originally Posted by Idgit

Again, running the ball is important because it's necessary for every team to get into enough convertible passing situations in terms of downs and distances. It's obviously important in goal line and short yardage situations, because it gives you points or the opportunity to score more points. Situationally, it's important because it can allow you to stay out of situations where you can't pass effectively.

Effectively, you've identified a list of ways in which *running success* (as opposed to running efficiency) is "important". The challenge for you is to specify what it means for it to be "important" without resorting to its correlation with winning. It's a challenge for you, in particular, only because you appear to take for granted that running the ball well does not correlate with winning. As I indicated in an earlier post, the stat heads aren't settled on this issue, even if they are settled on the more narrow issue of whether running efficiency, defined in terms of YPC, correlates with winning. See Burke's 2010 article.

Originally Posted by Idgit

It's just that being able to do it better than the other guy doesn't give you a significant competitive advantage.

As indicated above, this is where you begin to go off the rails.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by Idgit

Again, it's not that the running game isn't important. It's that running it effectively doesn't make you statistically much more likely to win that running it ineffectively.

Trying to think of examples of competitive teams who've spent a top pick on a running back in recent drafts where it's worked out. It's a pretty thin list: Trent Richardson, Doug Martin, Mark Ingram, CJ Spiller, Ryan Matthews, Jahvid Best, Knowshow Moreno, Donald Brown, Darren McFadden, Jonathan Stewart, F Jones, Mendenhall, Johnson.

Of the picks with any time in the league, only those 2008 guys have been all that notable so far, and even that draft had Ray Rice, Jamaal Charles, Matt Forte and Tashard Choice who were arguably better picks in later rounds.

[View Full Quote]Again, running the ball is important because it's necessary for every team to get into enough convertible passing situations in terms of downs and distances. It's obviously important in goal line and short yardage situations, because it gives you points or the opportunity to score more points. Situationally, it's important because it can allow you to stay out of situations where you can't pass effectively. It's just that being able to do it better than the other guy doesn't give you a significant competitive advantage.

I think it is more important for some team than other. Houston is not going to get into a passing war and win many games. They must have their running game going to be able to have success. Schaub is never going to be Rodgers but he can win and a large part of that is the running game. Take Houston running game out of the equation they are not going to win balls game it is a must for them and while it may not be as big of an issue for GB.

Fact is not all teams are built the same way but each has shown the ability to win it all.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Outlaw Heroes

Effectively, you've identified a list of ways in which *running success* (as opposed to running efficiency) is "important". The challenge for you is to specify what it means for it to be "important" without resorting to its correlation with winning. It's a challenge for you, in particular, only because you appear to take for granted that running the ball well does not correlate with winning. As I indicated in an earlier post, the stat heads aren't settled on this issue, even if they are settled on the more narrow issue of whether running efficiency, defined in terms of YPC, correlates with winning. See Burke's 2010 article.

As indicated above, this is where you begin to go off the rails.

Not at all, I think you're just misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. There's no distinction between running 'success' and running 'efficiency'.

I've addressed this in other threads, since this is a topic that comes up frequently. There are definitely running downs and distances and running situations in the NFL. Running the ball in those situations gets you in position to convert, and that's important. Short yardage is an obvious example. So is goal line. So are the short runs sprinkled throughout drives that get teams into second or third and 'manageable' situations. Running out the clock to protect a lead and avoid unnecessary risks (picks, sack/fumbles) in the passing game is another example. For these reasons, the running game is important. If teams didn't run, or couldn't run, in these situations, they'd end up in too many low-probability passing situations which would hurt the team's ability to pass effectively.

But just because these running situations are important, it doesn't mean that being able to do it better than the other guy makes you more likely to win. If the difference between an elite rushing average and a middling one is, say, a yard and a half for a pair of teams, the team with the weaker running game is still largely able to use that middling rushing attack to get into the situations it needs to get into for it's passing game to be effective. Or, if it fails to do so, these failure don't statistically correlate to losing more games. Short yardage is the lone exception here, as efficiency there has shown to have a loose correlation to winning.

So, that's the distinction I'm making between something being important to the game while not necessarily giving a competitive advantage. Every running game sets up every passing game. And effective running game doesn't setup a passing game much better than a middling or a poor one.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

I think it is more important for some team than other. Houston is not going to get into a passing war and win many games. They must have their running game going to be able to have success. Schaub is never going to be Rodgers but he can win and a large part of that is the running game. Take Houston running game out of the equation they are not going to win balls game it is a must for them and while it may not be as big of an issue for GB.

Fact is not all teams are built the same way but each has shown the ability to win it all.

Houston can win without the good running game if they're able to stop the other guys from passing effectively...which is a big part of why they've gotten better under Wade's DC.

Again, teams can win by being really tough to pass against effectively and then by just limiting mistakes in their own passing games. That's a blueprint we've seen with teams like BAL and PIT in recent years.

And, I'm guessing here, but I'd imagine being able to rely on a running game against certain defenses in order to avoid putting your passing game at risk of inefficiency is a tactical bonus when good pass defense teams are playing other good pass defense teams. It certainly doesn't hurt.

At the end of the day, though, it's the passing efficiency differential that's going to determine the winner of the game more often that not. And that's where the good teams should be spending their time and resources trying to get better.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by Idgit

Houston can win without the good running game if they're able to stop the other guys from passing effectively...which is a big part of why they've gotten better under Wade's DC.

Again, teams can win by being really tough to pass against effectively and then by just limiting mistakes in their own passing games. That's a blueprint we've seen with teams like BAL and PIT in recent years.

And, I'm guessing here, but I'd imagine being able to rely on a running game against certain defenses in order to avoid putting your passing game at risk of inefficiency is a tactical bonus when good pass defense teams are playing other good pass defense teams. It certainly doesn't hurt.

At the end of the day, though, it's the passing efficiency differential that's going to determine the winner of the game more often that not. And that's where the good teams should be spending their time and resources trying to get better.

You still got to score points on offense. As good as Houston defense is playing they still have to put up points and Foster is a big part of that. I know the importance of the passing game but I think running game for some teams is critical. Not everyone has some HOF type QB and again the running game to some teams is vastly more important to their success than others.

[Outlaw Heroes]

Originally Posted by Idgit

There's no distinction between running 'success' and running 'efficiency'.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. At any rate, the claim does not appear to agree with what reason suggests (surely, to use one of your examples, we can acknowledge that a team that consistently runs the ball in from the 1-yard line is acheiving running success even though those 1-yard runs are hurting the teams efficiency (YPC) numbers?) or with the approach stats heads seem to have adopted more recently to analyzing the importance of the run game in determining final outcomes.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010...cess-rate.html

Originally Posted by Idgit

But just because these running situations are important [emphasis added], it doesn't mean that being able to do it better than the other guy makes you more likely to win.

Again, you need to specify in what sense running the ball well in these situations "important" if, in your view, it doesn't contribute to winning. I must confess that I don't like your chances of coming up with anything compelling. It seems pretty obvious to me that if something happening on the field has no impact on wins or losses it is fundamentally unimportant.

Originally Posted by Idgit

If the difference between an elite rushing average and a middling one is, say, a yard and a half for a pair of teams, the team with the weaker running game is still largely able to use that middling rushing attack to get into the situations it needs to get into for it's passing game to be effective.

So far as I can tell, this is just another way of saying (contrary to your earlier assertion) that running more efficiently (i.e. having a YPC that is 1.5 greater than a middling YPC) is, in fact, distinct from running successfully.

Originally Posted by Idgit

So, that's the distinction I'm making between something being important to the game while not necessarily giving a competitive advantage.

Sorry, I'm still not seeing the distinction you wish to make. Again, the challenge for you is to explain how anything that happens on the field is "important" if it doesn't contribute meaningfully to the outcome of games (i.e. winning or losing).

[dwmyers]

Originally Posted by Outlaw Heroes

Effectively, you've identified a list of ways in which *running success* (as opposed to running efficiency) is "important". The challenge for you is to specify what it means for it to be "important" without resorting to its correlation with winning. It's a challenge for you, in particular, only because you appear to take for granted that running the ball well does not correlate with winning. As I indicated in an earlier post, the stat heads aren't settled on this issue, even if they are settled on the more narrow issue of whether running efficiency, defined in terms of YPC, correlates with winning. See Burke's 2010 article.

Run success (rate) isn't run efficiency as you're trying to define it. BB has a distinct definition of run success rate, which isn't the same as YPC.

YPC is an explosiveness stat, not a consistency stat.

Run success (more accurately run success rate), as defined by BB, is any run that increases EP. Put in other terms, any run that leads to a positive EPA is a successful run.

1 yard gains on 3rd and 1 increase EP, hence are successful runs. You could have a running back go 15 for 15 and if they were all 3rd and 1 runs, his run success would be 100%.

Now, to quote BB from this article..

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010...cess-rate.html

Based on SR, running correlates with team wins at 0.40, much higher than the 0.15 correlation based on efficiency.

So, not only is the correlation known for both run efficiency and SR, it still doesn't correlate as strongly with winning as does offensive or defensive YPA, which I believe is Idgit's point.

From the "how teams win" url I posted before, you get a correlation of 0.61 with offensive passing YPA and a corelation of -0.47 for defensive passing YPA, both more important than run success and substantially more important than running efficiency.

D-

[Outlaw Heroes]

Originally Posted by dwmyers

Run success (rate) isn't run efficiency as you're trying to define it. BB has a distinct definition of run success rate, which isn't the same as YPC.

You've misunderstood my post. I'm not defining "run success" as efficiency. I'm actually saying (as BB's article suggests) that they are quite distinct. The former correlates fairly strongly with winning whereas the latter doesn't.

Originally Posted by dwmyers

Run success (more accurately run success rate), as defined by BB, is any run that increases EP. Put in other terms, any run that leads to a positive EPA is a successful run.

1 yard gains on 3rd and 1 increase EP, hence are successful runs. You could have a running back go 15 for 15 and if they were all 3rd and 1 runs, his run success would be 100%.

So far, so good. We agree.

Originally Posted by dwmyers

Now, to quote BB from this article..

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010...cess-rate.html

The excerpt you quote is quite my point. It indicates that a "successful" running game (with success conceived as something other than efficiency, be it EPA or the kind of simple "rules of thumb" referred to by BB in his 2010 article) does, after all, correlate reasonably strongly with winning.

Originally Posted by dwmyers

So, not only is the correlation known for both run efficiency and SR, it still doesn't correlate as strongly with winning as does offensive or defensive YPA, which I believe is Idgit's point.

I don't believe that was Idgit's point. To quote him directly:

Originally Posted by Idgit

... running it effectively doesn't make you statistically much more likely to win that running it ineffectively.

I suspect even the most ardent supporter of the importance of effectively running and stopping the run would be willing to acknowledge that effectively passing and defending the pass are more important to the outcome of games. The claim that keeps getting trotted out, however, is that running well and defending the run well have very little impact on wins and losses. That's true if one defines "running well" (and "defending the run well") based on YPC. But it does not appear to be true (unless one thinks R2 values in excess of .4 are insignificant, and I certainly don't) if one uses EPA (or even a more simplified version of "run success", like the rules of thumb BB identifies). All of which suggests that those claiming that the running game matters little in terms of the outcomes of games are using the wrong metric (namely efficiency, defined in terms of YPC).

Originally Posted by dwmyers

From the "how teams win" url I posted before, you get a correlation of 0.61 with offensive passing YPA and a corelation of -0.47 for defensive passing YPA, both more important than run success...

Fair enough, but as I say, I don't believe that this is in dispute. One can acknowledge that the passing game is more important statistically without thereby resigning oneself to the notion that the running game is statistically unimportant (though running efficiency may well be unimportant).

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by xwalker

Come on, this has to be hyperbole. You can’t possibly believe this to be true.

It is true. How well you pass the ball and stop the pass has *much* more effect on winning than how well you run the ball or stop the run.

Topics are often described as irrelevant when they don’t fit someone’s narrative.

They're more often described as irrelevant when they don't have anything to do with the discussion. It doesn't matter what one particular player's YPC is or why.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

I think it is more important for some team than other. Houston is not going to get into a passing war and win many games. They must have their running game going to be able to have success. Schaub is never going to be Rodgers but he can win and a large part of that is the running game. Take Houston running game out of the equation they are not going to win balls game it is a must for them and while it may not be as big of an issue for GB.

The team that has passed the ball better is 7-0 in Houston's games this season. The team that has run the ball better is 3-4.

Houston's two worst rushing games this season came against Miami and Tennessee. The Dolphins ran the ball better, and the Titans ran the ball *much* better than the Texans did. But the Texans won both games by at least 20 points because they passed the ball much better.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

The team that has passed the ball better is 7-0 in Houston's games this season. The team that has run the ball better is 3-4.

Houston's two worst rushing games this season came against Miami and Tennessee. The Dolphins ran the ball better, and the Titans ran the ball *much* better than the Texans did. But the Texans won both games by at least 20 points because they passed the ball much better.

And yet the running game matter to Houston and the coaches will even tell you that. You can down play the run all you want but Foster play means a hell of a lot. If the run can cause the safety to bite up on a play or get LB to freeze then the ability to run means a hell of a lot to the passing. Houston is not just going to drop back time after time and pass the ball they use the run to help set up a very effective passing game.

Defensive teams go into the game vs Houston knowing they must stop the run and that alone helps Houston in the passing game. So while stats look good on paper they don't tell the whole story.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by Outlaw Heroes

You've misunderstood my post. I'm not defining "run success" as efficiency. I'm actually saying (as BB's article suggests) that they are quite distinct. The former correlates fairly strongly with winning whereas the latter doesn't.

Run success does not "correlate fairly strongly." It's still a low to moderate-at-best correlation -- and much lower than pass success. Other studies have found an even lower correlation for run success than Burke did. His point wasn't that run success correlates fairly strongly, it's that run success correlates more than simple YPC, which is true. I'm guessing that a good portion of that difference could be attributed to the ability to convert on short-yardage runs.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by Doomsday101

And yet the running game matter to Houston and the coaches will even tell you that. You can down play the run all you want but Foster play means a **** of a lot. If the run can cause the safety to bite up on a play or get LB to freeze then the ability to run means a **** of a lot to the passing. Houston is not just going to drop back time after time and pass the ball they use the run to help set up a very effective passing game.

Defensive teams go into the game vs Houston knowing they must stop the run and that alone helps Houston in the passing game. So while stats look good on paper they don't tell the whole story.

Defensive teams are fooling themselves (and hurting themselves) if they think they "must stop the run." The Dolphins did just that and got blown out because they couldn't pass effectively or stop the pass.

And as far as the running game helping the passing game, two of the Texans' three best running games also happen to be two of Schaub's three worst passing games. A theory is just a theory until it is proved on the field.