Outliers, YPC, and the Cowboys running game

[jterrell]

A really effective running game--whether it's via the RB or the QB or a combination of the two--can keep you from making mistakes in the passing game. That's as important as making big plays in the passing game, and it's what generally gets overlooked in these rushing offense debates. That works in SEA, because they can also keep you from being successful in your own passing game. They can win by just making fewer mistakes than you do, and that's what they do. The Pats beat them, and barely, by finding ways to be slightly more efficient in the passing game.

And the best illustration of this was the goal line pick that Wilson threw when they should have run the ball.

It's pretty well established what wins and loses games in the NFL at this point. i don't understand why people don't just accept it because it seems obvious when you watch the games and it's constantly getting reinforced when you watch the very best teams play each other.

It is well established statistically that passing game efficiency on both offense and defense ties to success while rushing stats are not AT ALL correlated.

Green Bay, NE, Denver and New Orleans all have had tremendous runs of success (and SB appearances) with passing games as their first, second and third options.

In the few cases of running game being the main factor those teams had a combo of great running game assisted by a QB rushing the ball (Kaep/Wilson) and tremendous defenses. SEA is the poster child for this but what makes them succeed is the best secondary in football and a top 10 level of QB play at a 3rd round rookie pay rate. Neither of their lines was dominant this year. They have lost a lot of the DL to pay days and the OL is just not very good. Wilson with his running threat and that defense carry a lot of the weight. Beastmode IS a major factor for them as well in that perfect storm of a system.

Teams can run the ball all day but if your defense is merely average and your QB is average you lose. Because it gets really hard to run the ball inside the 20s. And that's TD scoring territory. So if you are gonna win a grind it out game you darn well better defend. Seattle lost last year to Dallas and NE because it couldn't score enough points. 23 and 24 in those games. The first time in the post season that they gave up more than 22 points they lost. That's about zero room for error. While the Pats were down and being beaten up BADLY could rely on a couple Brady drives to come back from a large deficit to win the title.

Put another way, teams that want to run to win lock themselves into on way of doing things. Teams that can pass are never out of games.

So... Dallas.
Dallas has a franchise QB and a franchise WR and a Hall of Fame TE.
What makes their offense go is they can run AND pass.
They can wear down teams because you can't take away everything.
They can counter your moves and succeed.
The counter and attack works basically regardless of sport: basketball(Duke), boxing(mayweather), hockey (Hitchcock with Dallas and Detroit) you name a sport and it works.

NFL offenses want to run the ball to keep defenses honest and control the game, but this isn't 1960 and if you can't pass you can't play.
Balance is still very huge.

 

[Doomsday101]

It is well established statistically that passing game efficiency on both offense and defense ties to success while rushing stats are not AT ALL correlated.

Green Bay, NE, Denver and New Orleans all have had tremendous runs of success (and SB appearances) with passing games as their first, second and third options.

In the few cases of running game being the main factor those teams had a combo of great running game assisted by a QB rushing the ball (Kaep/Wilson) and tremendous defenses. SEA is the poster child for this but what makes them succeed is the best secondary in football and a top 10 level of QB play at a 3rd round rookie pay rate. Neither of their lines was dominant this year. They have lost a lot of the DL to pay days and the OL is just not very good. Wilson with his running threat and that defense carry a lot of the weight. Beastmode IS a major factor for them as well in that perfect storm of a system.

Teams can run the ball all day but if your defense is merely average and your QB is average you lose. Because it gets really hard to run the ball inside the 20s. And that's TD scoring territory. So if you are gonna win a grind it out game you darn well better defend. Seattle lost last year to Dallas and NE because it couldn't score enough points. 23 and 24 in those games. The first time in the post season that they gave up more than 22 points they lost. That's about zero room for error. While the Pats were down and being beaten up BADLY could rely on a couple Brady drives to come back from a large deficit to win the title.

Put another way, teams that want to run to win lock themselves into on way of doing things. Teams that can pass are never out of games.

So... Dallas.
Dallas has a franchise QB and a franchise WR and a Hall of Fame TE.
What makes their offense go is they can run AND pass.
They can wear down teams because you can't take away everything.
They can counter your moves and succeed.
The counter and attack works basically regardless of sport: basketball(Duke), boxing(mayweather), hockey (Hitchcock with Dallas and Detroit) you name a sport and it works.

NFL offenses want to run the ball to keep defenses honest and control the game, but this isn't 1960 and if you can't pass you can't play.
Balance is still very huge.

defense is a common with most of the SB teams, NE defense was very good, NO defense was good when they won it, so was GB defense when they won it or Pitt defense. I think defense is pretty much a given be it a run or a pass team. No doubt there are many teams who use the pass a lot more than the run that works for them. Myself I much rather be a team of balance vs a pass heavy team. I agree passing is important I really can't think of a time since the SB has been around that Passing was not important, that is why people remember Staubach, Bradshaw, Starr and many other great QB of those days. All I am saying is you don't have to be some pass happy throwing the ball 50 times a game to win. You can develop a strong running attack and win in this league. Heck maybe even more so as more defense are gear towards the pass they tend not to be that great vs a team running it down their throat

 

[jterrell]

Dallas improved dramatically in their injuries on defense. And the history of injuries shows that defensive players are more than twice as likely to get injured than offensive players. So it's not all that crazy to see an offense go relatively unscathed while the defense suffers injuries.

So yes, the defense had a lot of injuries...but compared to 2011-2013 it was a large improvement that coincided with much more running of the ball in Q1 and Q3.




YR

Again Dallas was 6th highest for games missed on defense while rushing the 2nd most times in the league.
Your correlation is hardly proven much less ready for statement as fact.

Shortening games would logically lead to less injuries on both sides of the ball but given that there are so many factors involved it is just one means of reducing injuries.

Seattle led the league in rushing attempts but was also top 10 in most defensive injuries last season.

While less plays is better for health, the more physical the game the more injuries. You obviously suffer far less injuries in 90% passing style touch or flag football than you do tackle.

 

[Idgit]

It is well established statistically that passing game efficiency on both offense and defense ties to success while rushing stats are not AT ALL correlated.

Green Bay, NE, Denver and New Orleans all have had tremendous runs of success (and SB appearances) with passing games as their first, second and third options.

In the few cases of running game being the main factor those teams had a combo of great running game assisted by a QB rushing the ball (Kaep/Wilson) and tremendous defenses. SEA is the poster child for this but what makes them succeed is the best secondary in football and a top 10 level of QB play at a 3rd round rookie pay rate. Neither of their lines was dominant this year. They have lost a lot of the DL to pay days and the OL is just not very good. Wilson with his running threat and that defense carry a lot of the weight. Beastmode IS a major factor for them as well in that perfect storm of a system.

Teams can run the ball all day but if your defense is merely average and your QB is average you lose. Because it gets really hard to run the ball inside the 20s. And that's TD scoring territory. So if you are gonna win a grind it out game you darn well better defend. Seattle lost last year to Dallas and NE because it couldn't score enough points. 23 and 24 in those games. The first time in the post season that they gave up more than 22 points they lost. That's about zero room for error. While the Pats were down and being beaten up BADLY could rely on a couple Brady drives to come back from a large deficit to win the title.

Put another way, teams that want to run to win lock themselves into on way of doing things. Teams that can pass are never out of games.

So... Dallas.
Dallas has a franchise QB and a franchise WR and a Hall of Fame TE.
What makes their offense go is they can run AND pass.
They can wear down teams because you can't take away everything.
They can counter your moves and succeed.
The counter and attack works basically regardless of sport: basketball(Duke), boxing(mayweather), hockey (Hitchcock with Dallas and Detroit) you name a sport and it works.

NFL offenses want to run the ball to keep defenses honest and control the game, but this isn't 1960 and if you can't pass you can't play.
Balance is still very huge.

It all reduces down to passing effectiveness differential. If you can stop the pass, and you can avoid taking risks in the passing game, you can win a lot of games. If you can pass like crazy and still be effective, you can win a lot of games. If you can pass effectively and stop the pass effectively, you're going to contend. Seattle proves that just as much as NE does, they just do it by controlling the defensive side of the equation.

Dallas last year was actually a contender because we were so effective on the offensive side of the equation. We ran to stay out of bad passing situations, and we passed effectively when the opportunities were there. Our problem was that we couldn't also stop the pass, and that caught up with us--barely--when we played another great passing offense that had a slightly better pass defense.

That's why I'm not worried about letting the RB walk. As the OP indicates, we'll still be able to run on the downs where we want to run in order to stay in favorable passing situations. And we did a lot to improve the relatively inefficient pass defense. We're going to be better this season at the things you need to be good at to contend. We'll be worse at some of the things that don't matter as much. Again, with the sole possible exception of RBs in pass protection, which is why I actually am glad that we brought in a back that we know is strong in that area.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Ah, that makes sense. Good stuff.
Any chance the defensive injuries skew towards the LB position? It would make sense that they do, and LB and S seem to be areas where we've personally been clobbered the last couple of season. I'm curious, because we seem to be beefing up that LB corps with a lot of contenders this season. I know there were times last season when we were down to our last three healthy backers and crossing our fingers.

I'm wondering if maybe we're looking at going heavy at that position group this year and if it could be related to what you're talking about here. I know when we made the move to the 4-3, one of the considerations was the toll that injuries were taking on the defense, and how hard it was to bring players up to speed on Rob's complicated system when you added them late in the season. So we went with something more simplistic and modular that simplified responsibilities and emphasized technique for a reason.

IIRC, the defensive backfield position gets a lot of injuries, particularly cornerbacks. I'd have to look further, but I remember being told that.




YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Again Dallas was 6th highest for games missed on defense while rushing the 2nd most times in the league.
Your correlation is hardly proven much less ready for statement as fact.

Shortening games would logically lead to less injuries on both sides of the ball but given that there are so many factors involved it is just one means of reducing injuries.

Seattle led the league in rushing attempts but was also top 10 in most defensive injuries last season.

While less plays is better for health, the more physical the game the more injuries. You obviously suffer far less injuries in 90% passing style touch or flag football than you do tackle.

Again, when you look at Dallas percentage of run plays in previous seasons under Garrett compared to this past season there was a substantial improvement in defensive players being injured. Sure, it was still not very good, but it was *markedly better* than it was in previous seasons under Garrett and the team ran more.

You seem to not understand how *mathematical correlations* work. When I have ran these correlations over the past 10 seasons LEAGUE WIDE and the math shows that there is a strong correlation between rushing plays in the 1st and 3rd quarters and defensive injuries that is more than a large enough sample size to prove that there is a linear relationship between the two variables.

So when you combine the MATH of the correlation between LEAGUE WIDE defensive player injuries based on running the ball more and the Cowboys improving on their injuries when running the ball more and the simple fact that the more plays on defense means more opportunities to get injured...it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out the role that running the ball played in the Cowboys *improved* health.






YR

 

[BlindFaith]

Most definitely. Explosive plays win games, and plus or minus 7 of them can make or break a season. It's still really interesting to think how thin the line is between a below average RB and an above average one.

There is much more to it than that. It's fairly inaccurate to try and gauge how good a RB is based on that. How do you factor in the quality of the offensive line? Down and distance of each play? Opponents played? Injuries? Scheme fit? How good is the defense? Playing from behind?

Football Outsiders tries to account for some of the above.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

That analysis paints a different picture and gives you a ranking that is much more indicative of how to evaluate a RB. The DYAR in this measurement shows that there really is a BIG gap between below average RB and above average.

Murray get's slammed way too much by many. He's too slow. He played behind a great OL. He got tons of yards before contact.

Is he all world? No. But he will be missed.

 

[Nightman]

There is much more to it than that. It's fairly inaccurate to try and gauge how good a RB is based on that. How do you factor in the quality of the offensive line? Down and distance of each play? Opponents played? Injuries? Scheme fit? How good is the defense? Playing from behind?
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

That analysis paints a different picture and gives you a ranking that is much more indicative of how to evaluate a RB. The DYAR in this measurement shows that there really is a BIG gap between below average RB and above average.

Murray get's slammed way too much by many. He's too slow. He played behind a great OL. He got tons of yards before contact.

Is he all world? No. But he will be missed.

Classic chicken and the egg if you ask me.

The OL didn't start getting all the publicity until Murray was rattling off 100 yard games.

Romo was under fire a lot early in the season and we had no answer for WAS's blitzes and then he got hurt.

I think it was a combination of the OL and Murray staying healthy and being allowed to grow into their talents.

 

[BlindFaith]

Classic chicken and the egg if you ask me.

The OL didn't start getting all the publicity until Murray was rattling off 100 yard games.

Romo was under fire a lot early in the season and we had no answer for WAS's blitzes and then he got hurt.

I think it was a combination of the OL and Murray staying healthy and being allowed to grow into their talents.

And actually making a commitment to run the ball. The oline and Murray the previous couple of years actually had a pretty good YPC average. Garrett just didn't want to run the ball and Romo would audible out of a lot of runs.

Taking that away from Romo and Linehan making a much more concerted effort to run the ball helped a lot.

 

[Idgit]

There is much more to it than that. It's fairly inaccurate to try and gauge how good a RB is based on that. How do you factor in the quality of the offensive line? Down and distance of each play? Opponents played? Injuries? Scheme fit? How good is the defense? Playing from behind?

Football Outsiders tries to account for some of the above.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

That analysis paints a different picture and gives you a ranking that is much more indicative of how to evaluate a RB. The DYAR in this measurement shows that there really is a BIG gap between below average RB and above average.

Murray get's slammed way too much by many. He's too slow. He played behind a great OL. He got tons of yards before contact.

Is he all world? No. But he will be missed.

The point isn't that there aren't a lot of factors that go into differentiating great backs from ordinary ones. The point is that on the forum here we frequently think about what we've lost in Murray int terms of how it's going to affect how defenses play the run and the kinds of downs and distances we're likely to get in, but when you look at the distribution of production in terms of carries across the league, you see that they bunch up situationally, and that the exceptional runs from the exceptional running teams happen in a very small percentage of plays. It's not a knock on Murray, it's a commentary on how the position actually works in the NFL and what we ought to expect in terms of the effect of the switch at RB in this season's games.

I'd be the last person to say Murray won't be missed. We lost a heck of a good player when we decided not to overpay for the production that a highly paid RB gives you.

 

[Idgit]

And actually making a commitment to run the ball. The oline and Murray the previous couple of years actually had a pretty good YPC average. Garrett just didn't want to run the ball and Romo would audible out of a lot of runs.

Taking that away from Romo and Linehan making a much more concerted effort to run the ball helped a lot.

I think this is what really changed last season. Murray was always a capable back, despite the injury knocks. We just weren't as committed to calling the running plays. Even if it only gets you marginally closer to the first down marker, sometimes avoiding a lower-probability pass is the smarter play.

And I think we're going to continue to do that no matter who our RBs, are, because it really helped the passing game last season.

 

[BlindFaith]

The point isn't that there aren't a lot of factors that go into differentiating great backs from ordinary ones. The point is that on the forum here we frequently think about what we've lost in Murray int terms of how it's going to affect how defenses play the run and the kinds of downs and distances we're likely to get in, but when you look at the distribution of production in terms of carries across the league, you see that they bunch up situationally, and that the exceptional runs from the exceptional running teams happen in a very small percentage of plays.

Yeah, I don't think this really mirrors with this - " It's still really interesting to think how thin the line is between a below average RB and an above average one."

The line is not thin. If your presentation here is trying to support that - it hasn't. I'm actually not really sure what point you're trying to make for that matter.

 

[BlindFaith]

I think this is what really changed last season. Murray was always a capable back, despite the injury knocks. We just weren't as committed to calling the running plays. Even if it only gets you marginally closer to the first down marker, sometimes avoiding a lower-probability pass is the smarter play.

And I think we're going to continue to do that no matter who our RBs, are, because it really helped the passing game last season.

I hope so. I just have the feeling that Linehan/Garrett will be quick to pull the plug on the running game if we don't see similar production as last year. Especially if our defense is better.

 

[Idgit]

Yeah, I don't think this really mirrors with this - " It's still really interesting to think how thin the line is between a below average RB and an above average one."

The line is not thin. If your presentation here is trying to support that - it hasn't. I'm actually not really sure what point you're trying to make for that matter.

That quote was referring to below/above average RBs in terms of their yards/carry average, obviously. And by 'thin line' I'm referring to the small number of outlier carries as a percentage of a RB's total carries for the season.

I'm sorry if I"m not making the point clear enough for you. I'm not sure I'm capable of communicating the point I'm trying to make any better, unfortunately. But rest assured that I understand that there are factors that go into the success of an NFL running game that go beyond the yards/carry for a players best runs in a given season.

 

[Idgit]

I hope so. I just have the feeling that Linehan/Garrett will be quick to pull the plug on the running game if we don't see similar production as last year. Especially if our defense is better.

We'll see. I think that's pretty unlikely, but then, I don't think we're going to see a huge production hit for most of the down/distance situations we want to be in.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is much more to it than that. It's fairly inaccurate to try and gauge how good a RB is based on that. How do you factor in the quality of the offensive line? Down and distance of each play? Opponents played? Injuries? Scheme fit? How good is the defense? Playing from behind?

Football Outsiders tries to account for some of the above.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

That analysis paints a different picture and gives you a ranking that is much more indicative of how to evaluate a RB. The DYAR in this measurement shows that there really is a BIG gap between below average RB and above average.

Murray get's slammed way too much by many. He's too slow. He played behind a great OL. He got tons of yards before contact.

Is he all world? No. But he will be missed.

That stat is cumulative. I understand that efficiency typically goes down with more attempts but when some of those backs had 30% less carries then it doesn't tell me very much.

 

[Nightman]

The point isn't that there aren't a lot of factors that go into differentiating great backs from ordinary ones. The point is that on the forum here we frequently think about what we've lost in Murray int terms of how it's going to affect how defenses play the run and the kinds of downs and distances we're likely to get in, but when you look at the distribution of production in terms of carries across the league, you see that they bunch up situationally, and that the exceptional runs from the exceptional running teams happen in a very small percentage of plays. It's not a knock on Murray, it's a commentary on how the position actually works in the NFL and what we ought to expect in terms of the effect of the switch at RB in this season's games.

I'd be the last person to say Murray won't be missed. We lost a heck of a good player when we decided not to overpay for the production that a highly paid RB gives you.

Why is it overpaying when that is less than what the other top RBs get and the production was much larger.

If the NFL had some advanced stats like baseball, it would be easy to show that Murray's 2014 was easily worth 8m.

 

[AdamJT13]

If the NFL had some advanced stats like baseball, it would be easy to show that Murray's 2014 was easily worth 8m.

It does, an it's not, because the advanced stats show that running games mean little to winning and losing in the NFL. So people who think otherwise just ignore them.

 

[Crown Royal]

It does, an it's not, because the advanced stats show that running games mean little to winning and losing in the NFL. So people who think otherwise just ignore them.

Is there anything that ties passing stats to down and distance, and then can you show the purpose of that down and distance?

in other words, seems to me that teams that find themselves in 2nd and 6 more often than 2nd and 8 have more success?

 

[AdamJT13]

Again, when you look at Dallas percentage of run plays in previous seasons under Garrett compared to this past season there was a substantial improvement in defensive players being injured. Sure, it was still not very good, but it was *markedly better* than it was in previous seasons under Garrett and the team ran more.

You seem to not understand how *mathematical correlations* work. When I have ran these correlations over the past 10 seasons LEAGUE WIDE and the math shows that there is a strong correlation between rushing plays in the 1st and 3rd quarters and defensive injuries that is more than a large enough sample size to prove that there is a linear relationship between the two variables.

So when you combine the MATH of the correlation between LEAGUE WIDE defensive player injuries based on running the ball more and the Cowboys improving on their injuries when running the ball more and the simple fact that the more plays on defense means more opportunities to get injured...it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out the role that running the ball played in the Cowboys *improved* health.

Even if the numbers show a correlation, correlation does not equal causation. There is no logical reason that *running plays* alone on offense would affect how often that team's defense gets injured -- they're not even on the field at the same time. There have to be other factors involved that actually explain it, such as the number of plays the defense is on the field or the number of passes/runs that the defense faces or something else.