Off-Season Priority #1: Find A Running Game

[DWAREZ]

Originally Posted by miamicowboy21

This draft is full of offensive lineman and defensive lineman. 80 percent of our draft must be devoted to both sides of the line thats where these games are won.

This is the ONLY offseason blue print we need to follow.

Reference to the other 20% would be in no specific order:

WR, RB, S, cb (Jenkins leaving).

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by xwalker

Interceptions alone, without pass or run yards, have a high correlation to winning. No complicated formula needed:

Interceptions alone don't correlate as well as when you include other measures of passing efficiency. They also don't correlate either way in nearly 20 percent of all games, when neither team throws an interception. What determines who wins in those games?

If the running game could be proven to have no bearing on winning, NFL teams would know about. You, the fan would start to see teams go without running backs.

Not true at all. As I've said before, running the ball can be useful, even if it doesn't really matter how well you run it. And running backs obviously play a role in the passing game.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

While i have no stats to back this, a solid and consistent running game will hide flaws in a passing attack.

Which is why I'd like to see the oine improved, because it is my theory that Romo needs to be less Superman and more bus driver.

Limit his mistakes.

TwoDeep, I agree 100% with this. We need to be able to rely on the running game and defense in the games where we're currently unable to pass the ball effectively. Right now, we can't.

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Running the ball can be useful, even if it doesn't really matter how well you run it.

Dallas had 18 runs from inside the opponents' 10-yard line, and converted 6 TD.

We could have scored on most, or every single run from inside the 10; also we could have been stopped on all but a couple, or every single one of them. The difference is how well (or how poorly) we ran it.

If we go 10-of-18, instead of 6-of-18, that difference matters.

[Super_Kazuya]

We also seem to have very little home run capability at the position. That's one thing I miss about Felix, at least the version of Felix that wasn't trying to become even bigger than the guy he was backing up (M. Barber).

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by percyhoward

Dallas had 18 runs from inside the opponents' 10-yard line, and converted 6 TD.

We could have scored on most, or every single run from inside the 10; also we could have been stopped on all but a couple, or every single one of them. The difference is how well (or how poorly) we ran it.

If we go 10-of-18, instead of 6-of-18, that difference matters.

Not necessarily. All that matters is that you score. If you get a first-and-goal at the 1 and run four straight times before punching it in, that counts just as much as if you score on first down. If you run twice, then throw a TD pass, that counts, too. If you throw a TD pass on first down, that counts, too.

Keep fishing, though.

[Zman5]

Originally Posted by Hoov

All formulas are made up. analysts crunch numbers and try to come up with a good statistical formula that actually correlates to winning. None are perfect, but why would anyone ignore something that takes critical data into account and shows a high correlation to winning ?

Obviously the formula you produced is not meant to be taken seriously.

A team could pass for 500 yards and 4 td's and run one time for 1 yard and if they scored more than the other team they would be an efficient running team by that formula.

Why dont you actually test the data for yourself and see if the passing efficiency formula proves true - all you have to do is pull up game statistics and plug the numbers in.

[View Full Quote]And after that if you still believe that the run game is being slighted in its importance to winning. Then why dont you do some research and see if you can find a good formula to measure running efficiency then see if it actually correlates to winning. Maybe you will find something that no one else has found yet.

You can say the same thing about ANYPA formula Adam is using. His fomula doesn't account for how the Ints were thrown.

The team that lost could have had higher ANYPA all through out the game but in the end come out with lower ANYPA because of the last minute hail mary int.

You can claim the winning team won because it passed better according to ANYPA but that's not completely true.

[phildominator]

Regardless of how efficiently we pass, it still has to be better than our opponents. in other words, even if we field a 'D-' in passer efficiency, we'll beat our opponents with the passer efficiency of an 'F'.

To make the cowboys win more games, what facet of Passing Efficiency do we need to improve - our offenses own passing efficiency, our defenses ability to decrease opponents' passing efficiency, or just timing?

1. How does our season overall passer efficiency stack up versus the 8 division winners? If we're comparable, then our offense seems to good enough to win games.

2. If our opponents' passing efficiency averaged over the season scores high, then we need to improve our defense.

3. Timing - we may very well have a case where both our offenses and defenses passer efficiencies are fantastic, we just have bad timing for when it occurs.

Say in Game #1, Even if we have an 'A-' in passing efficiency, if our opponents' passing efficiency was an 'A+', we're going to lose 80% of the time. Then, in Game #2, our defense improved and opponent's passer efficiency was a 'B', but then our offense had bad timing to put up a 'C+'. Over the course of a season, our efficiencies look sufficient, but we still lose too many games.

[phildominator]

Originally Posted by Zman5

You can say the same thing about ANYPA formula Adam is using. His fomula doesn't account for how the Ints were thrown.

The team that lost could have had higher ANYPA all through out the game but in the end come out with lower ANYPA because of the last minute hail mary int.

You can claim the winning team won because it passed better according to ANYPA but that's not completely true.

The point is that a team with a "higher" ANYPA throughout the game wouldn't need to throw a last minute Hail Mary.


This scenario only seems plausible if the two teams' ANYPA were close and being the "higher" ANYPA doesn't make a difference. Or if the higher ANYPA team was losing the turnover battle or Devin Hester goes for 2 punt return TDs on us...but that's why it was stated 80% of the victors have a better rating, not 100%.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by Zman5

You can say the same thing about ANYPA formula Adam is using. His fomula doesn't account for how the Ints were thrown.

The team that lost could have had higher ANYPA all through out the game but in the end come out with lower ANYPA because of the last minute hail mary int.

You can claim the winning team won because it passed better according to ANYPA but that's not completely true.

First of all, the flaw in xwalker's ridiculous formula isn't because of a correlation, it's because it doesn't measure what he wants to claim that it measures. So it's not even close to the same thing as the flaws in most statistics, such as the "cheap" Hail Mary interception, or the interception that wasn't the quarterback's fault affecting his passer rating, etc.

Secondly, in most games, the ANYPAs for both teams aren't close enough that one fewer interception by the losing team would make any difference in which team ended up with the higher ANYPA. In only five out of the 256 games this season would it have changed who finished higher. Even if all five of those were because of a "cheap" INT at the end of the game, that would hardly affect the correlation -- it would mean that "only" 77.5 percent of the teams that had a higher ANYPA won the game.

It's also more likely that the losing team could have had a lower ANYPA all game but bumped it up in the final minutes with meaningless yards against a prevent defense. But it probably happened only a few times, and it likely is balanced out by the cheap stats going the other way. In the end, the correlation probably doesn't change much at all -- and probably is affected even less by those types of things than by all of the other oddities that can happen in games and affect who wins and loses.

[AdamJT13]

Originally Posted by phildominator

Regardless of how efficiently we pass, it still has to be better than our opponents. in other words, even if we field a 'D-' in passer efficiency, we'll beat our opponents with the passer efficiency of an 'F'.

To make the cowboys win more games, what facet of Passing Efficiency do we need to improve - our offenses own passing efficiency, our defenses ability to decrease opponents' passing efficiency, or just timing?

1. How does our season overall passer efficiency stack up versus the 8 division winners? If we're comparable, then our offense seems to good enough to win games.

2. If our opponents' passing efficiency averaged over the season scores high, then we need to improve our defense.

3. Timing - we may very well have a case where both our offenses and defenses passer efficiencies are fantastic, we just have bad timing for when it occurs.

[View Full Quote]Say in Game #1, Even if we have an 'A-' in passing efficiency, if our opponents' passing efficiency was an 'A+', we're going to lose 80% of the time. Then, in Game #2, our defense improved and opponent's passer efficiency was a 'B', but then our offense had bad timing to put up a 'C+'. Over the course of a season, our efficiencies look sufficient, but we still lose too many games.

Here are our game-by-game ANYPA numbers for offense and defense --

Opp.	Offense		Defense		Net	
NYG	7.194		4.600		2.594	W
SEA	4.707		5.227		-0.520	L
TB	4.302		0.733		3.569	W
CHI	2.444		9.962		-7.518	L
BAL	5.324		8.370		-3.046	L
CAR	6.676		3.821		2.855	W
NYG	2.924		4.600		-1.676	L
ATL	8.417		8.595		-0.178	L
PHI	6.103		5.047		1.056	W
CLE	3.526		4.703		-1.177	W
WAS	4.766		7.400		-2.634	L
PHI	9.828		6.543		3.285	W
CIN	3.478		3.263		0.215	W
PIT	7.326		5.659		1.667	W
NO	8.800		8.415		0.385	L
WAS	1.179		4.579		-3.400	L

Avg.	5.437		5.720

As you can see, the team that had the higher ANYPA won 14 of the 16 games (and both of the other games were decided overtime). We had some losses when we passed OK but were not good enough on defense and some when we didn't pass well. One thing that sticks out, though, is that we had only one game when our opponent's ANYPA was really low. Teams finish with an ANYPA of 3.2 or worse almost 20 percent of the time, but we held only one opponent to a number that low.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

That's not the equation I use.

What is your equation?

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

You're missing the point. It's not about a specific equation, it's about passing effectiveness, no matter how it is measured. You can use any of the ANYPA equations. You can use passer rating. You can use unadjusted yards per pass play. You can use pass success rate or just about any other equation that measures passing effectiveness on a per-play basis. They all end up with close to the same correlations.

Are these your definitions of those terms?

unadjusted yards per pass play = (total passing yards) / attempts

pass success rate = completions / attempts

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Not at all. There are all kinds of equations and formulas that people use for different purposes that combine different types of factors, both in sports and outside of sports.

If you can correlate without a complicated formula like the simple "equations" above, then this is a non-issue.

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Except that your equation does not measure running efficiency. It actually measures total points scored, with a small adjustment for rushing yards. All you did was give it an improper name (rushing hardly affects it at all, and it doesn't have anything at all to do with efficiency). If Team A scores 35 points and rushes 20 times for minus-20 yards, and Team B scores 34 points and rushes 20 times for 300 yards, you're really going to claim that your formula indicates that Team A was more efficient at running? That's just silly.

My equation was intended to be silly to make a point. The point being that you can manipulate equations to get a desired result.

ANYPA is defined as passing efficiency by a group of people. Stating that it is an absolute measure of passing efficiency is misleading.

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

That makes no sense. It doesn't even attempt to measure passing, so it can't be used to determine whether passing correlates to winning. You can't just not measure something and then say that must mean it doesn't correlate to something else.

The point of my equation is that randomly defined equations can be wrong even if they correlate to a set of data.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Interceptions alone don't correlate as well as when you include other measures of passing efficiency. They also don't correlate either way in nearly 20 percent of all games, when neither team throws an interception. What determines who wins in those games?

A great set of data to analyze would be from all the games where neither team throws an interception.

Does passing yards or passing average or some other simple stat correlate to winning in those games?

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Not true at all. As I've said before, running the ball can be useful, even if it doesn't really matter how well you run it. And running backs obviously play a role in the passing game.

That is not my impression of what you have been saying up to this point.

I think most people would agree that the passing game in football has more importance than the running game in the modern era.

I think people could believe:

importance of passing / importance of running = 60/40

I don't think anyone is going to believe:

importance of passing / importance of running = 99/1

[Doomsday101]

When you can do both very well you take the predictablity out of the offense. For some teams that running game means a lot more than to other teams it is part of who they are as an offense and means a lot in terms of their winning and losing. Stats are great but watch the games and the importance some coaches place on their ability to run.

Funny Aikman talked of the importance of it during the Skins vs Seahawks but then what does he know right? I doubt he is a stats guy.

[percyhoward]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Not necessarily. All that matters is that you score. If you get a first-and-goal at the 1 and run four straight times before punching it in, that counts just as much as if you score on first down. If you run twice, then throw a TD pass, that counts, too. If you throw a TD pass on first down, that counts, too.

We get it -- it doesn't matter how you score. None of those situations has anything to do with the one I described.

If you go 10-of-18 instead of 6-of-18, those were necessarily four more (different) drives that you scored on.

Four touchdowns that you otherwise would not have had, unless for some reason you want to say that all 4 would have been passing TD.

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Keep fishing, though.

Address the points that are being made, please.