Passing Better and Defending The Pass (Fallacy Revisited)

[Clove]

Just for the record the Vikings passed better and defended the pass better than we did tonight, and they lost. Looks like that theory isn't holding up very well against these Dallas Cowboys.

This is why on defense, points scored is the most important part. People look at overall defense, who gives a squat? What I want to know is how many points are guys scoring on you, and we're 6th in that category.

 

[AdamJT13]

I love how you have changed the bar.

I have never changed the bar. In fact, I didn't even set the bar. The bar was set almost 43 years ago, when Bud Goode first wrote about his "killer stat" (yards per pass attempt differential). It was further established in 1988, when Bob Carroll, John Thorn and Pete Palmer published "The Hidden Game of Football," which first introduced ANYPA. I've been saying the exact same things I'm saying now since I first began posting on Usenet in the mid-1990s. The bar has never moved an inch. And the "theory" remains more true than ever.

Its sort of similar to how you say it is irrelevant how well we run the ball, as long as we continue to run it. Its as if we could lose 20 yards per running play, so long as we continue to run the ball.

That's a ridiculous argument. It's like saying because punting average doesn't correlate with winning, we could punt the ball backward every time and still win, or that if we get the first turnover in the game, we should take a knee on every play to make sure we win the turnover battle.

You can keep pretending whatever you want, but it will never change the facts. The facts speak for themselves -- and have been for decades.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Just for the record the Vikings passed better and defended the pass better than we did tonight, and they lost. Looks like that theory isn't holding up very well against these Dallas Cowboys.

Except they didn't. Dallas passed for 7.7 YPA, Minnesota for 5.5.
In ANY/A (adjusted net yards per pass attempt), Dallas led 7.4 to 5.6.

 

[NextGenBoys]

Just FYI, I understand what the Adam horde, is saying, I just disagree with it. Their theory has been slowly modified to fit their agenda and the situation.

I like these guys, they are just wrong about this particular point. At least that is what I think. I know that Adam will continue to play that tune and many will join in in dancing a jig to that merry tune, but alas, I will not be one of them. LOL.

I like you guys and you bring a lot to this board, I just respectfully think you guys are dead wrong on this one. It is like the running the ball theory..... that it doesn't matter how well you run the ball, so long as you run it. LOL, Right. They know that teams will abandon the run if they can't run it, so it essentially ignores that factor.

You can't see the wind either, so how do you know it is there? If you don't have any air you can't breathe, but pretending it doesn't exist because you cant see it is pretty silly.

You are coming off at best as very uninformed, and at worst, a fool.

 

[JD_KaPow]

This is why on defense, points scored is the most important part. People look at overall defense, who gives a squat? What I want to know is how many points are guys scoring on you, and we're 6th in that category.

What's "overall defense"? If you mean yards allowed, yeah, that's a ridiculous way to measure defense.
Points allowed per drive and takeaways per drive are both very useful stats for understanding how the defense is doing. We will always be relatively low in total points allowed, because we generally limit the number of drives in a game (both offensive and defensive). But that in itself doesn't give us an advantage, it just keeps overall scoring down. Which is why you need to pay attention to the per-drive numbers. And takeaways matter not only because they reduce points allowed per drive, but also because they give the offense shorter fields to work with. Points scored per game is not the be-all and end-all of defense evaluation.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Just for the record the Vikings passed better and defended the pass better than we did tonight, and they lost. Looks like that theory isn't holding up very well against these Dallas Cowboys.

Dak is the 4th most efficient QB in the NFL and he leads an 11 win team. What exactly is surprising to you?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

You are missing my point. I think you know what I am getting at. LOL. You are purposely overlooking it.

No the argument is that teams that are more efficient passing the ball usually win. Overwhelmingly often they win.

Last night the Cowboys passed the ball more efficiently. And they won.

Why are you confused?

 

[JD_KaPow]

Just FYI, I understand what the Adam horde, is saying, I just disagree with it. Their theory has been slowly modified to fit their agenda and the situation.

Disagreeing is one thing. Making claims of intellectual dishonesty is quite another. Adam etc. have always used exactly the same stats to define passing efficiency, stats that have been around for many years and are easy to find on Pro Football Reference. Dallas pretty clearly won that stat (ANY/A) last night. They also won passer rating differential, and yards per attempt differential. In fact, I have no idea what you were looking at that made you think that the Vikings out-passed the Cowboys, unless it was raw yardage, which is completely useless: losing teams often throw like crazy late in games, racking up huge yardage totals in lost causes.

Personally, I think ANY/A isn't perfect, because it doesn't account for fumbles or for rushing yards on passing plays (scrambling). But it's pretty good.

 

[Risen Star]

Apparently, you don't understand what "passing better" and "defending the pass better" means.

We averaged more adjusted net yards per pass play (the main stat behind the "theory"). We also averaged more yards per pass play and had a higher passer rating. All of those have a very high correlation to winning, and we won.

That "theory" is as true as it ever was. It's been true in 11 of our 12 games this season and in 48 of our past 50 games overall.

This is why it's best to put the calculator down and watch the games.

The Cowboys passed and defended the pass better in that game? Puhleaze.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

The stat rats don't believe in passing yards just differential and points per drive. Did you notice how they left out the defending the pass part because it didn't fit their narrative?
We have been successful Running the ball 50% of the plays, staying balanced very similar to how we ran our offense in 2014.
Idgit and the pass happy crowd who like to sling it 75% are eating crow... again.

Please look up what the word differential means and then try to understand how it contradicts your "left out the defending the pass part."

 

[Sydla]

It is comical that every member of the Adam horde have also ignored the part about Adam saying running the ball is irrelevant, that it doesn't matter how well you run the ball, because it doesn't fit the narrative. Not one person from the Adam horde has discussed that in this thread, because it is not defensible.

The team that runs better wins at a lower rate than the team that passes better. His point is that all of you saying that you have to run the ball well to win are not accurate.

It's actually a pretty easy concept if you think about and don't act like a stubborn fool hell bent on trying to prove a guy wrong at the expense of your own credibility.

 

[Sydla]

This is why it's best to put the calculator down and watch the games.

The Cowboys passed and defended the pass better in that game? Puhleaze.

Oh do you were impressed with all those 3 yard passes from Bradford last night?

If Prescott played like Bradford did last night, you'd have killed him today.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Oh do you were impressed with all those 3 yard passes from Bradford last night?

If Prescott played like Bradford did last night, you'd have killed him today.

Which is odd, because if Wentz had played like Bradford did, ... oh wait, Wentz plays like that every game.

 

[Maxmadden]

Oh do you were impressed with all those 3 yard passes from Bradford last night?

If Prescott played like Bradford did last night, you'd have killed him today.

You do have to admit, it looked very Wentzesque.

 

[Nightman]

Keep moving the bar and adjusting the theory, my friend.

The theory isn't wrong.......the numbers are too strong over the years to disregard the correlation to winning and passing the ball more efficiently......that cannot be argued at an 80% win rate....stronger than just Turnovers and stronger than TOP

The problem is that it has mutated into conclusions that running the ball effectively is irrelevant to winning.......there just isn't a strong stat to examine the data........they use the advanced ANYPA to judge passing efficiency and then use simple YPC to analyze rushing efficiency........of course the correlation isn't as strong

I proposed using something similar like ANRYPA to see if it is a strong correlation

Rushing Yard + (10x Rushing 1st Downs) + (30x Rushing TD) - (25x Fumbles Lost)/ Carries


I believe that yards and points don't care how they are gained and scored.....whether you can rush for first downs and TDs or throw for first downs and TDs it is the same......there are more risks with passing but the game was morphed into using a lot more short passes and screens as runs because they are safer

 

[Clove]

What's "overall defense"? If you mean yards allowed, yeah, that's a ridiculous way to measure defense.
Points allowed per drive and takeaways per drive are both very useful stats for understanding how the defense is doing. We will always be relatively low in total points allowed, because we generally limit the number of drives in a game (both offensive and defensive). But that in itself doesn't give us an advantage, it just keeps overall scoring down. Which is why you need to pay attention to the per-drive numbers. And takeaways matter not only because they reduce points allowed per drive, but also because they give the offense shorter fields to work with. Points scored per game is not the be-all and end-all of defense evaluation.

Why not? If you're only scoring 15, yet I score 28, I'll always win. I don't care about anything other than the final score.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Which is odd, because if Wentz had played like Bradford did, ... oh wait, Wentz plays like that every game.

That's why RS was impressed with Bradford's night.

It was a typically Wentz game.

Lot's of attempts... not many yards and not many points.

 

[Verdict]

But Verdict your original post... The one that started this thread had absolutely nothing to do with "running the football".

Here's the OP:

"Just for the record the Vikings passed better and defended the pass better than we did tonight, and they lost. Looks like that theory isn't holding up very well against these Dallas Cowboys."

I would suggest a new thread if you want to suddenly move the goal-posts of the topic.

I think there have been sufficient replies that have answered your OP.

It's all part of the original horde narrative and is fair game in the discussion of this thread.

 

[Verdict]

This is why on defense, points scored is the most important part. People look at overall defense, who gives a squat? What I want to know is how many points are guys scoring on you, and we're 6th in that category.

I agree that the only factor in winning and losing is the score. How that score came about is not important in the winning or losing of that game but how it came about may be indicative of the results are repeatable long term.

 

[Verdict]

The theory isn't wrong.......the numbers are too strong over the years to disregard the correlation to winning and passing the ball more efficiently......that cannot be argued at an 80% win rate....stronger than just Turnovers and stronger than TOP

The problem is that it has mutated into conclusions that running the ball effectively is irrelevant to winning.......there just isn't a strong stat to examine the data........they use the advanced ANYPA to judge passing efficiency and then use simple YPC to analyze rushing efficiency........of course the correlation isn't as strong

I proposed using something similar like ANRYPA to see if it is a strong correlation

Rushing Yard + (10x Rushing 1st Downs) + (30x Rushing TD) - (25x Fumbles Lost)/ Carries


I believe that yards and points don't care how they are gained and scored.....whether you can rush for first downs and TDs or throw for first downs and TDs it is the same......there are more risks with passing but the game was morphed into using a lot more short passes and screens as runs because they are safer

Valid points of reference.