Outliers, YPC, and the Cowboys running game

[Nightman]

So now your argument is it is only a small % of runs that have to be replaced. Inherent in this argument is the assumption that Murray does not produce outliers at a rate substantially different from other backs - b/c if he does it kills your replaceability argument. On that basis, you should fully accept my estimate of outlier adjusted YPC.

More generally the premise that we only need to replace 8 big plays remains a complete whiff

Totally incorrect because you're adjusting to a 3.5 ypc or so that you've just made up on the spot? I don't think so.

The whole point of the thread is that, for all backs, the big plays are outliers and the outliers are significant in terms of a RBs average but that they don't reflect the vast majority of what a RB does for an NFL team. It's not ignoring the nearly 400 hundred carries or the 100s of hard runs at all. In fact, it's the opposite. It's saying that those are the types of runs that are reasonable outcomes for most average blocked running plays for average NFL backs, and, as a percentage of rushing plays that are called, they account for the overwhelming majority of a given RBs production. Which, in turn, is possibly why a the relative effectiveness of a RB's play does not materially impact winning percentages. Because 99% of the time or more he's getting the kind of success these plays generate, and drives are kept alive based on that kind of production. The outlier plays are the rare exception to the rule.

Murray had 27 carries of 15 yds or more. 15 carries of 20 yds or more. 3 carries of 40 yds or more.

Why would you take away 7 carries as an outlier?????

He clearly busted a lot of big runs.

 

[AbeBeta]

Murray had 27 carries of 15 yds or more. 15 carries of 20 yds or more. 3 carries of 40 yds or more.

Why would you take away 7 carries as an outlier?????

He clearly busted a lot of big runs.

Looking at the data he seems to have cut it off at 25+ yards.

More importantly - you lead the league in rushing, you'll obviously have a bunch of 15+ yard runs. I'd expect Murray was actually a bit light on the 25+ yard runs compared to previous leaders. He lacks elite speed which makes his year even more impressive - he got this done on lots of 6-8 yard type runs on first down that put us in great offensive situations

 

[Idgit]

Murray had 27 carries of 15 yds or more. 15 carries of 20 yds or more. 3 carries of 40 yds or more.

Why would you take away 7 carries as an outlier?????

He clearly busted a lot of big runs.

I didn't cut anything, that data was from the article I posted, and 7 was the number that he used to reduce to the average. Not because that was a useful way to look at Murray's production, but because it was an anecdotal illustration of what really separates the most productive backs from the backs with average production. This isn't really that hard, guys.

 

[Idgit]

NOPE...not in my sample size

I can't really answer this the way I'd like to. Perhaps it's a sampling error.

 

[Idgit]

So now your argument is it is only a small % of runs that have to be replaced. Inherent in this argument is the assumption that Murray does not produce outliers at a rate substantially different from other backs - b/c if he does it kills your replaceability argument. On that basis, you should fully accept my estimate of outlier adjusted YPC.

More generally the premise that we only need to replace 8 big plays remains a complete whiff

So now, nothing. I'm not saying anything different here than I said previously.

And there's all sorts of stuff wrong with this example. It's not meant to be an exhaustive study of anything. It's a anecdote involving three runners and their relative position to the league average. And how does that justify your blind guess in any way? You're missing the forest for the trees if you can't understand the premise of the argument at this point. 8 plays or not, when you're talking about 400+ carries in a season, the percentage of total runs is not very significant, which is the point whether you want to accept it or not.

 

[Nightman]

I didn't cut anything, that data was from the article I posted, and 7 was the number that he used to reduce to the average. Not because that was a useful way to look at Murray's production, but because it was an anecdotal illustration of what really separates the most productive backs from the backs with average production. This isn't really that hard, guys.

You came up with the idea that these 7 'outlier' runs were easily replaceable with a few passes.

I'm saying that these 7 runs accounted for 245 yards or 13% of his yards, but they weren't outliers. They were in fact just a small fraction of his long runs.

You can't just arbitrarily jump in and out to get a certain outcome. Murray's YPC was artificially low IMO to start with because of the way he was used. Dallas stayed with Murray early and often to set the tone, even when it wasn't working.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey, now. First of all, you haven't pointed out anything. You made an obvious comment that was beside the point of the argument in the first place, which I tried to address again for you. I say 'again,' because that same point had been made many times previously in this very thread. Second of all, that's sexist. Women can admit they're wrong, too, you know.

Lololol!!!! Just kidding!!!!! (and, actually ladies, I am kidding. I firmly believe that it's only my wife who's never yet been wrong about anything, and I know *that's* right because she's told me so and she's never wrong).

As for me 'coming up with a realistic number for you that supports the point you didn't make,' no. It's not my job to make your arguments. My argument never included the idea that Murray was the only RB with statistical outliers in his YPC data. Why would I try to say that? It doesn't make any sense. The point was--if it's only a relatively small percentage of runs for any running back which are statistically exceptional in the first place--and if equivalent plays are easier to replicate in the passing game anyway--then how much does it really matter who you've got running the ball? We've all seen variants of this argument presented many times, and it's always rejected out of hand by people who want to believe the rushing game affects wins and losses more than it actually does, but seeing it in the context of how a very good RB like Murray's productive carries are actually distributed, I thought, was pretty interesting.

Risen Star is your wife? interesting.

 

[Idgit]

Risen Star is your wife? interesting.

Now that's just gross.

 

[Idgit]

You came up with the idea that these 7 'outlier' runs were easily replaceable with a few passes.

I'm saying that these 7 runs accounted for 245 yards or 13% of his yards, but they weren't outliers. They were in fact just a small fraction of his long runs.

You can't just arbitrarily jump in and out to get a certain outcome. Murray's YPC was artificially low IMO to start with because of the way he was used. Dallas stayed with Murray early and often to set the tone, even when it wasn't working.

I didn't arbitrarily do *anything.* Nobody's taking anything away from Murray, and nobody's saying he didn't have other long runs or significant plays. The 7 plays were the number of his longest runs that separated his production from the production of the average for his position. But *again,* this isn't commentary on Demarco Murray. It's commentary on what the distribution of carries for a productive NFL running back actually looks like.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Now that's just gross.

Sorry I couldn't help myself. If she knows who he is, you should tell her I said that.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't arbitrarily do *anything.* Nobody's taking anything away from Murray, and nobody's saying he didn't have other long runs or significant plays. The 7 plays were the number of his longest runs that separated his production from the production of the average for his position. But *again,* this isn't commentary on Demarco Murray. It's commentary on what the distribution of carries for a productive NFL running back actually looks like.

So, given equal YPA, would you rather a guy that has more outliers and a lower 'typical' run or a guy with less outliers and a higher 'typical' run average?

 

[TheDude]

Risen Star is your wife? interesting.

That was a good one.

 

[Nightman]

I didn't arbitrarily do *anything.* Nobody's taking anything away from Murray, and nobody's saying he didn't have other long runs or significant plays. The 7 plays were the number of his longest runs that separated his production from the production of the average for his position. But *again,* this isn't commentary on Demarco Murray. It's commentary on what the distribution of carries for a productive NFL running back actually looks like.

It's apples to oranges

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's apples to oranges

I don't see him comparing anything. I see him making a new paradigm to evaluate a RB. If you are saying that it is different than convention then sure but that was his entire point in the exercise.

 

[Idgit]

So, given equal YPA, would you rather a guy that has more outliers and a lower 'typical' run or a guy with less outliers and a higher 'typical' run average?

I"d imagine we'd want fewer outliers, right? Just keep the offense in normal situations for the passing game to convert and get your big plays that way when someone in the secondary falls down or blows a coverage or commits PI. Try to avoid the 3rd-and-unlikelies that can stall your drives.

 

[Idgit]

Sorry I couldn't help myself. If she knows who he is, you should tell her I said that.

Oh, god. She has no idea he exists. We don't talk about any of my weird addictions.

If she knew how much of my time I spent arguing with people on the internet, she'd tell me to get a life. And we've already covered that she would, of course, be right.

 

[Nightman]

I don't see him comparing anything. I see him making a new paradigm to evaluate a RB. If you are saying that it is different than convention then sure but that was his entire point in the exercise.

He is saying that since the number of plays that separates Murray and an average back is so small that it can easily be made up by other average backs or a few passing plays.

Comparing Murray's performance to an average back while taking away 13% of his yards and only 2% of his carries is not a fair starting point.

 

[Idgit]

He is saying that since the number of plays that separates Murray and an average back is so small that it can easily be made up by other average backs or a few passing plays.

Comparing Murray's performance to an average back while taking away 13% of his yards and only 2% of his carries is not a fair starting point.

I'm saying that the other 385 of Murray's carries approximate the production from an average running back, and that with an above average OL, that level of productivity is probably achievable.

If we're going to make up the big plays or be more effective than we were last year, it likely would come out of the passing game, because it's easier to get the big plays out of the passing game. But that's a matter of 245 yards, as you pointed out, and not something that changes materially the down and distance situations we'd be facing the other 98% of the time we're actually running the football.

 

[Nightman]

I'm saying that the other 385 of Murray's carries approximate the production from an average running back, and that with an above average OL, that level of productivity is probably achievable.

If we're going to make up the big plays or be more effective than we were last year, it likely would come out of the passing game, because it's easier to get the big plays out of the passing game. But that's a matter of 245 yards, as you pointed out, and not something that changes materially the down and distance situations we'd be facing the other 98% of the time we're actually running the football.

It equates to the average RB if you don't take away all their top runs. If you take away say 10% of their yards then his performance will still be heads and shoulders ahead.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Murray wasn't offered $6 million per year for the 7 long runs per year. Randle can probably give you those runs. Murray was offered $6 million per year because he can carry 25+ times per game and move the chains.

If that is the case, that begs the question.......................they obviously don't think any of the current backs can do that. In other words, they don't believe Randle/Williams/Dunbar/McFadden collectively are anywhere close to the value Murray represented. Otherwise, why make the $6 million a year offer if his production can be replaced in house at a fraction of the cost? And other than McFadden, everybody else was on the team last year and making peanuts compared to what they offered Murray. So if Murray's production could be replaced with the backs currently in house, why offer such a large sum of money to Murray to begin with? It doesn't make any logical sense.

I have said it 1000 times and I will say it again.............another RB will be added to this team and he will get the majority of the carries this season. No way in hell do they start the season with this current group of 4 RBs because they think so highly of this group they were going pay another RB over twice what all these backs combined make.

You don't make an offer to another RB that is over twice what your entire current core of running backs are making if you seriously think they can get the job done.