Passing Better and Defending The Pass (Fallacy Revisited)

[MichaelWinicki]

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

Gotta say Verdict you're just sorta rambling at this point.

 

[Verdict]

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.

I have never said you have to run the ball to win. I am just saying that that the pass better/defend the pass horde have a miguided point of view.

 

[Verdict]

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.

Be careful Risen they will trip you as they are moving the bar!!

 

[Verdict]

Gotta say Verdict you're just sorta rambling at this point.

I guess if you don't agree with what I am saying it is rambling. I am still waiting to hear the horde defend the it doesn't matter how well you run the ball narrative. Care to weigh in on that?

I am all ears to hear hear why it is unimportant. When should we cut Zeke?

 

[Verdict]

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.



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.

There are numerous posts where you have said it doesn't matter how well we run the ball. Now you appear to be moving the bar. Has your stance changed, or are you sticking with your prior stance that it is irrelevant how well we run the ball?

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I guess if you don't agree with what I am saying it is rambling. I am still waiting to hear the horde defend the it doesn't matter how well you run the ball narrative. Care to weigh in on that?

I am all ears to hear hear why it is unimportant. When should we cut Zeke?

My belief dovetails what Bill Parcels said, "It's not the average per carry that matters in the running game, but the number of carries."

If you want to disagree with that then go take it up with him.

 

[Verdict]

My belief dovetails what Bill Parcels said, "It's not the average per carry that matters in the running game, but the number of carries."

If you want to disagree with that then go take it up with him.

Right. So you could lose 20 yards per carry and be golden, just so long as you do it often. Sounds about right!

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Right. So you could lose 20 yards per carry and be golden, just so long as you do it often. Sounds about right!

Of course you're going to use a ridiculous scenario.

Nice way to support your position.

Bill Parcels ran OJ Anderson for two seasons for 550 carries and 1807 yards for a 3.30 ypc average.

Yes 3.30 yards per carry.

And he won a SB in one of those seasons.

 

[Verdict]

Of course you're going to use a ridiculous scenario.

Nice way to support your position.

Bill Parcels ran OJ Anderson for two seasons for 550 carries and 1807 yards for a 3.30 ypc average.

Yes 3.30 yards per carry.

And he won a SB in one of those seasons.

I am taking the argument that you are making and taking it to its logical conclusion. You can't say it doesn't matter but that it "kinda does" in the same breath. It undermines your point.

 

[Verdict]

When you guys say that it doesn't matter how well you run the ball you can't qualify it, otherwise you are saying how well you run it DOES to some degree, matter.

 

[T-RO]

I am just saying that that the pass better/defend the pass horde have a miguided point of view.

You completely stepped in it. Again!

For the 500th time. It's not total yards. It's effectiveness per pass play versus the defense's effectiveness per pass play.

If you can't wrap your head around the concept it's time to bow out of the discussion because it's exceptionally embarrassing for us to watch this again.

This game was merely yet another validation of the pass-efficiency formula.

 

[T-RO]

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.

It's called data. The world is becoming a place where those that understand data rule the world. Those who can't work at Subway.

Dallas was the more effective passing team PER ATTEMPT than the Vikings and it wasn't even close.

Dallas: 7.7 YPA
Vikings: 5.5 YPA

 

[Verdict]

You completely stepped in it. Again!

For the 500th time. It's not total yards. It's effectiveness per pass play versus the defense's effectiveness per pass play.

If you can't wrap your head around the concept it's time to bow out of the discussion because it's exceptionally embarrassing for us to watch this again.

This game was merely yet another validation of the pass-efficiency formula.

Get back with me on how the run is irrelevant and how it doesn't matter how well we run the ball. Don't overlook that one.

If it requires a slide ruler to explain it bring yours with you because I am afraid I don't own one.

 

[Verdict]

It's called data. Those that understand data rule the world and those who can't work at Subway.

Dallas was the more effective passing team PER ATTEMPT than the Vikings and it wasn't even close.

Dallas: 7.7 YPA
Vikings: 5.5 YPA

Use your data to explain how we can lose 20 yards per running play and we can still win as long as we do it often. I have my popcorn ready and am ready for the presentation.

 

[T-RO]

Get back with me on how the run is irrelevant and how it doesn't matter how well we run the ball. Don't overlook that one.

If it requires a slide ruler to explain it bring yours with you because I am afraid I don't own one.

Go back to the previous threads. It's been discussed and explained repeatedly.

I've never owned a slide ruler. Data is digital.

 

[Verdict]

I'm still waiting on you guys to provide your digital data about how we can lose an infinite amount of yards per running play and still win as long as we do it often. Surely Adam can bail you guys out of this.

According to Adam it is irrelevant how well you run the ball as long as you do it often. Surely he can play his flute and provide a musical chorus of posters explaining this magical phenomenon where you can lose an indefinite amount of yards running the ball as long as you do it often!

 

[bsbellomy]

They also fumbled a punt, failed to convert a tying 2 pt conversion and kicked three FGs instead of getting TDs. That will get you beat most of the time.

We more than evened that out with our own turnovers and untimely penalties.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I am taking the argument that you are making and taking it to its logical conclusion. You can't say it doesn't matter but that it "kinda does" in the same breath. It undermines your point.

It doesn't undermine the point.

 

[Verdict]

Got it. It's ok to say it doesn't matter, but kinda matters and it is the same thing as long as it suits the position you want to advocate.

I was always of the school of thought that doesn't matter really means doesn't matter. I stand corrected.

 

[Nightman]

Got it. It's ok to say it doesn't matter, but kinda matters and it is the same thing as long as it suits the position you want to advocate.

I was always of the school of thought that doesn't matter really means doesn't matter. I stand corrected.

the reason these threads go so long is that they will not admit that Adam and them always take the data to the next step and proclaim that running it well doesn't matter

then someone else steps in and says "we never said that"

but then they repeat the claim over and over again and they also add that you also don't have to pass it well, you just have to play better pass defense than your opponent......so now it doesn't matter if you pass it or run it well as long as you play a little better defense

it drives the pro-running crowd crazy because they can see with their eyes that running it well matters big time and so does stopping the run

BUT NO ONE HAS COME UP WITH A WAY TO CORRECTLY MEASURE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE RUNNING GAME

having no data to support your theory because no one has every developed a stat to measure it is not the same as the theory being incorrect

it defies any kind of logic that yards gained passing are somehow better than yards gained rushing or that rushing yards from the QB aren't drive savers or that 1yard screen plays aren't really running plays

These correlations are fun but they don't help you game plan or predict victory.......they are great for lookng back and saying "oh that is why they won"