Broaddus Tweets: Ratliff will be 3, Hatcher the 1

[theogt]

Running the ball effectively in the red zone can make a difference. These numbers are from 2011.

Red Zone Passer Rating
Romo 105.9
Eli 75.9

Red Zone Rushing TD
Dallas 4
Giants 18

FG attempts
Dallas 7th
Giants 28th

Red Zone Scoring Percentage
Dallas 20th
Giants 9th

Scoring
Dallas 15th
Giants 7th

So, in fact, you were saying that "teams that score a lot of redzone rushing TDs score more in the redzone."

Setting aside the fact that you didn't provide any statistics to back it up, what you're attempting to show is obvious and is what we call a tautology. It tells us nothing about whether having a better running game helps actually win games.

 

[theogt]

It was lazy of me to use common sense as shorthand there.

I think the problem was that you assumed what you were saying was correct, when it isn't.

 

[hra8700]

Statistical analysis after statistical analysis has shown that having a good running game does NOT contribute winning in the NFL. How can people continue to ignore this? .

This is both patently false and absurd if you think about it. You must not be looking at the right stats. Running success rate correlates with wins at an r squared of .40. Its also obvious that if a team ran the ball in the exact same situations, and averaged an extra yard per carry more, they would win more. When you look at statistical data you need to understand 1. What is the underlying principle you are trying to look at and 2. What other variables can interfere with your statistical analysis.

Five of the top nine highest-scoring teams (per drive) made up the top 5 in red zone TD percentage, so there is a clear connection between red zone TD and scoring.

1. Major Sample size problem
2. You are basically saying that scoring leads to winning, which is close to a tautology. Every single good thing a football tram does is correlated to winning (obviously). But is it correlated to itself? Do teams with more redzone tds in the first half of the season continue to have more redzone tds in the second half of the season after you factor out their ability to get to the red zone?

 

[theogt]

This is both patently false and absurd if you think about it. You must not be looking at the right stats. Running success rate correlates with wins at an r squared of .40. Its also obvious that if a team ran the ball in the exact same situations, and averaged an extra yard per carry more, they would win more. When you look at statistical data you need to understand 1. What is the underlying principle you are trying to look at and 2. What other variables can interfere with your statistical analysis.

It's neither false, nor absurd. There is almost zero correlation between success at running and winning percentage, and the reason it has little correlation is that it running well has little impact on scoring. A team can go from 3.5 YPC in one season to 4.5 YPC in another season and it will have almost no impact on how many points the team scores.

Funnily enough, there's actually a noticeably negative correlation between running success and redzone scoring percentage. In other words, teams that run the ball worse tend to be better at scoring in the redzone.

 

[CF74]

Statistical analysis after statistical analysis has shown that having a good running game does NOT contribute winning in the NFL. How can people continue to ignore this?

You could ask the Bills (4th in the league), Chiefs (5th), Giants, (7th), Panthers (T-8th), Titans (T-8th), Eagles (T-8th), what having good running games did for them. Those teams, which comprised 6 of the top 10 running teams in the NFL, won an average of less than 6 games in 2012.

I would say a stellar running game minus an even better passing game would be true in that scenario above..

Having a superior passing game and a decent run game to compliment that superb passing does in fact increase your chances of winning though, its a passing league now, but you still need a decent rushing attack...

 

[theogt]

but you still need a decent rushing attack...

The statistics say otherwise.

 

[Rack]

Passing well is the only thing that really matters. And running better doesn't impact whether a team passes better.

Every coach in the NFL disagrees with you.

 

[TheSport78]

Every coach in the NFL disagrees with you.

Including every coach who has ever coached in the NFL...past or present.

 

[Mansta54]

Including every coach who has ever coached in the NFL...past or present.

Not just the NFL, college, and HS too.

 

[theogt]

Every coach in the NFL disagrees with you.

Ironically, this is why passing continues to be so much more effective.

 

[Idgit]

Every coach in the NFL disagrees with you.

They do. Or at least the vast majority do. But the correlation still exists, unless it's just the wrong thing being measured.

The other thing I'd say is that, while every NFL coach will say the running game is important (because it is), they might not all say that running the ball more effectively than the other guy is important. If you do an average job of running the football in obvious running situations, you're still just as likely to win the game as the team that does an above average job in those same situations.

The obvious exception is in short-yardage where, iirc, the success correlation is more pronounced because the variance between being good and being average in those situations actually can be the difference between scoring or extending a drive and not scoring or having to punt.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

Always viewed Ratliff as a 3 tech quick twitch in the 4/3, rushing the passer and playing 1 on 1 one is his strength. He is our Warren Sapp.

 

[theogt]

This is both patently false and absurd if you think about it. You must not be looking at the right stats. Running success rate correlates with wins at an r squared of .40. Its also obvious that if a team ran the ball in the exact same situations, and averaged an extra yard per carry more, they would win more. When you look at statistical data you need to understand 1. What is the underlying principle you are trying to look at and 2. What other variables can interfere with your statistical analysis.

By the way, I don't think the "success rate" statistic is a useful statistic at all when judging the effectiveness of a better running game in relation to winning percentage. The problem with the statistic is that it defines the result as something that adds or subtracts from winning. When you define one variable as only true when it makes a second variable true, then of coures there's going to be a high(er) correlation of both being true or false.

For example, let's look at field goals. You could compare missed field goals and winning percentage. There may not be any significant correlation to winning percentage. But if you looked at missed (or converted) field goals attempts only when they would result in a last second, game winning field goal, there's going to be a much higher correlation. In fact, it almost certainly has a higher correlation than QB rating. Does that mean you "need" a good field goal kicker? Does that extremely high correlation mean that field goal kickers are more important than quarterbacks?

No, it just means you defined the statistics such that one results in the other, giving them an inflated correlation.

 

[Idgit]

By the way, I don't think the "success rate" statistic is a useful statistic at all when judging the effectiveness of a better running game in relation to winning percentage. The problem with the statistic is that it defines the result as something that adds or subtracts from winning. When you define one variable as only true when it makes a second variable true, then of coures there's going to be a high(er) correlation of both being true or false.

For example, let's look at field goals. You could compare missed field goals and winning percentage. There may not be any significant correlation to winning percentage. But if you looked at missed (or converted) field goals attempts only when they would result in a last second, game winning field goal, there's going to be a much higher correlation. In fact, it almost certainly has a higher correlation than QB rating. Does that mean you "need" a good field goal kicker? Does that extremely high correlation mean that field goal kickers are more important than quarterbacks?

No, it just means you defined the statistics such that one results in the other, giving them an inflated correlation.

This is both patently false and absurd if you think about it. You must not be looking at the right stats. Running success rate correlates with wins at an r squared of .40. Its also obvious that if a team ran the ball in the exact same situations, and averaged an extra yard per carry more, they would win more. When you look at statistical data you need to understand 1. What is the underlying principle you are trying to look at and 2. What other variables can interfere with your statistical analysis.

1. Major Sample size problem
2. You are basically saying that scoring leads to winning, which is close to a tautology. Every single good thing a football tram does is correlated to winning (obviously). But is it correlated to itself? Do teams with more redzone tds in the first half of the season continue to have more redzone tds in the second half of the season after you factor out their ability to get to the red zone?

FYI, guys, it's exchanges like this that really make the forum fun to read in the offseason. Good stuff, on both sides.

 

[Little Jr]

This is interesting stuff. Question and I'm not being a smat #@$ lol. Should teams run the ball? What good do y'all se in running the ball?

 

[blindzebra]

This is interesting stuff. Question and I'm not being a smat #@$ lol. Should teams run the ball? What good do y'all se in running the ball?

Yes.

There needs to be some balance. It helps keep drives going, keeps you out of long yardage situations and increases TOP.

You don't need to run to set up the pass in today's NFL but the threat of both makes everything easier.

 

[theogt]

This is interesting stuff. Question and I'm not being a smat #@$ lol. Should teams run the ball? What good do y'all se in running the ball?

To summarize, we can't know for sure, but teams should run generally less than what they do now.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/offenses-run-too-often-on-1st-down.html

Right now, we can't say what the optimum 1st down run-pass ratio should be. But we can say with high confidence that offenses would be better off passing more often.

An interesting bit is that the statistics also show that teams pass entirely too much inside the 10 yard line.

 

[Little Jr]

To summarize, we can't know for sure, but teams should run generally less than what they do now.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/offenses-run-too-often-on-1st-down.html

An interesting bit is that the statistics also show that teams pass entirely too much inside the 10 yard line.

Thanks theogt

 

[hra8700]

It's neither false, nor absurd. There is almost zero correlation between success at running and winning percentage, and the reason it has little correlation is that it running well has little impact on scoring. A team can go from 3.5 YPC in one season to 4.5 YPC in another season and it will have almost no impact on how many points the team scores.

Funnily enough, there's actually a noticeably negative correlation between running success and redzone scoring percentage. In other words, teams that run the ball worse tend to be better at scoring in the redzone.

Exactly what way have you analyzed these correlation? I cant make any specific comments until then. Off the top of my head, possible reasons why it may SEEM like running is not useful.

1. Salary cap. Teams with quarterbacks that are good devote resources to the passing game instead of the running game. Teams with bad quarterbacks have to devote resources to the running game. Good quarterbacking is way better than a good running game. Thus running will not be correlated to wins.

2. Running out the clock. Teams with big leads run out the clock, in those situations defenses stack the box, thus ypa on rushes will go down when teams win.

3. Coaches with good running games overvalue running and run more than they should, thus league wide, better running leads to incorrect game theory and thus not winning.

The passing game is more important, clearly, but saying adding one ypa on rushing plays will not impact winning is prima facie absurd.

In regards to success rate, football is different than most statistical analyses in that EVERY metric is inherently related to winning. Yards, posessions, etc are all innately tied to winning. That is also the reason why making claims like running well doesnt lead to winning makes no sense. Ill give you that success rate is more intrinsically tied to winning than just ypa, but that version of success rate is almost identical to the version that simply predicts probability of first down, which then would be no different than any other metric.

 

[CF74]

The statistics say otherwise.

What statistics? Link? When has a superb passing team won anything with a last place rushing attack? Because that is what you are selling...

The best passing teams to ever win a Super Bowl still had a middle of the road if not slightly better rushing attack to compliment their passing game...

Colts, Packers, and even the Saints come to mind in recent years...