Rushing statistics and their correlation to sucess

[waldoputty]

The entire article is loaded in BTB: http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2016...g-statistics-and-their-correlation-to-success

...
...

Many of us are aware of the lack of correlation between rushing efficiency with points scored. Some interpret this as proof that rushing is no longer important in the modern game. Some go further and state that it is not worth while to invest heavily in the rushing game. RBs were not drafted in the 1st round (mostly)...

The primary issue is the lack of correlation between rushing efficiency and points scored:

1. The problem here is that rushing efficiency is a flawed stat. If the defense plays 8 in a box, they take away from rushing efficiency. However, while efficiency is poor, you may score more because the passing game is opened up (increasing scoring potentially). Thereby, any 'correlation' is reduced.

2) The ability of an offense to score when the defense is play 8 in the box is dependent on the OL, QB and WRs. Can they handle the pass rush? Can the passing game execute under a run blitz with less reaction time? If they can handle these well, then they will score more points. If not, the offense will score less points. Again, these wash out 'correlation'. The effect of 8 in the box - reducing rushing efficiency while points scored may go up or down depending on the rest of the team's ability to cope.

3) Beyond how the defense plays, rushing efficiency is affected obviously by the offense play calling as well as the score. If you are ahead late in the game (e.g. 4th quarter), then the offense will rush to take time off the clock. During those rushes, the defense is expecting the run, thereby lowering the rushing efficiency. Again this takes away any 'correlation'.

...

Running away again wearing body armor
It is fun to poke a hornet's nest

 

[xwalker]

The entire article is loaded in BTB: http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2016...g-statistics-and-their-correlation-to-success

...
...

Many of us are aware of the lack of correlation between rushing efficiency with points scored. Some interpret this as proof that rushing is no longer important in the modern game. Some go further and state that it is not worth while to invest heavily in the rushing game. RBs were not drafted in the 1st round (mostly)...

The primary issue is the lack of correlation between rushing efficiency and points scored:

1. The problem here is that rushing efficiency is a flawed stat. If the defense plays 8 in a box, they take away from rushing efficiency. However, while efficiency is poor, you may score more because the passing game is opened up (increasing scoring potentially). Thereby, any 'correlation' is reduced.

2) The ability of an offense to score when the defense is play 8 in the box is dependent on the OL, QB and WRs. Can they handle the pass rush? Can the passing game execute under a run blitz with less reaction time? If they can handle these well, then they will score more points. If not, the offense will score less points. Again, these wash out 'correlation'. The effect of 8 in the box - reducing rushing efficiency while points scored may go up or down depending on the rest of the team's ability to cope.

3) Beyond how the defense plays, rushing efficiency is affected obviously by the offense play calling as well as the score. If you are ahead late in the game (e.g. 4th quarter), then the offense will rush to take time off the clock. During those rushes, the defense is expecting the run, thereby lowering the rushing efficiency. Again this takes away any 'correlation'.

...

Running away again wearing body armor
It is fun to poke a hornet's nest

Good work!

The funny thing is that I think some NFL teams fell victim to the same myth that caused fans to believe the flawed theory.

Remember the days of Felix Jones when Garrett refused to commit to the run. At some point the Cowboys obviously figured out that the running game is very important. They hired Callahan to implement the zone blocking scheme, drafted OL and then drafted Zeke.

 

[Idgit]

Obligatory clarification that the argument is never that rushing is no longer important in the modern game and only that increased rushing effectiveness doesn't make you more likely to win. It's obvious that there are rushing situations and that it plays an important role in any offense.

Really, though, you pivoted to rushing efficiency after that first sentence, and that's what your post is about. I think what gets lost is that there are lots of different ways teams put themselves into positions to pass effectively. One of those ways might be getting in position to face more 8 man fronts. That doesn't mean that's the only way to get into an advantageous situation for passing effectively. It also doesn't necessarily follow that you need to spend premium resources at RB to get teams into 8 man fronts. We saw as much last year with Darren McFadden. The argument is, if you can get into the looks with a Randle or a McFadden, how much does having an Elliott or a Gurley help you out? Or if you can find other ways to get into situations where you can pass the ball more effectively with less expensive resources (let's say you get that speed WR at the top of the 2nd), you can spend your more limited resources making it harder for other teams to pass effectively against you (eg, getting that impact edge rusher we won't have on the roster).

You also have to look at the delta you get with the pick. How much does the delta between that edge rusher and your next man up improve your passing efficiency differential over the delta between a RB and your RB alternative. And then you look at the scarcity of impact players at DE or CB after the first round of the draft v. the availability at the RB position. Is it easier to find a Danielle Hunter than it is a David Johnson or a Jay Ajayi?

I love what Zeke brings to the team. Above, all, I'm really happy we didn't whiff on a top-5 pick. He also happens to have a temperament that's added a lot of aggression and physicality to the entire offense, which is something that goes beyond the position he plays. He pass blocks really really well, and he generally doesn't fumble. I am 100% not complaining. That said, I still think it was not the best tactical decision to take him at #4. And I don't think I"m crazy for saying that.

 

[waldoputty]

Good work!

The funny thing is that I think some NFL teams fell victim to the same myth that caused fans to believe the flawed theory.

Remember the days of Felix Jones when Garrett refused to commit to the run. At some point the Cowboys obviously figured out that the running game is very important. They hired Callahan to implement the zone blocking scheme, drafted OL and then drafted Zeke.

I think this gives us an advantage. By the time the teams catch up and starting drafting RB and OL, it would be an avalanche and there would not be enough to go around. Only Tenn and Buff seem to have the same mind set. Of those 2, I would be more worried about Tenn, but Murray is getting up there in age so by the time their team gels, they only have the rookie Henry left, but he does not have much wiggle. In comparison, Zeke is the complete back.

OTOH, we have our 3-4 probowler OL on long term conflict. BTW, their contract cost per year becomes more and more of a bargain. This creates a $10M-$20M secret salary cap stash that no one else has.

 

[CATCH17]

I love what Zeke brings to the team. Above, all, I'm really happy we didn't whiff on a top-5 pick. He also happens to have a temperament that's added a lot of aggression and physicality to the entire offense, which is something that goes beyond the position he plays. He pass blocks really really well, and he generally doesn't fumble. I am 100% not complaining. That said, I still think it was not the best tactical decision to take him at #4. And I don't think I"m crazy for saying that.

I was with you with that line of thinking on draft day and even part of this season but now that I've seen it play out a little I will have to disagree.

In a league where most teams are watered down and kind of the same the Dallas Cowboys do something unique that no other team does and we have high pedigree at the OL and RB position.

Also, it's kind of what this franchise has always been built on.


So I won't question the Zeke pick anymore unless something crazy happens because it has been an absolute shot of adrenaline that this franchise has needed.

 

[Stash]

Good work!

The funny thing is that I think some NFL teams fell victim to the same myth that caused fans to believe the flawed theory.

Remember the days of Felix Jones when Garrett refused to commit to the run. At some point the Cowboys obviously figured out that the running game is very important. They hired Callahan to implement the zone blocking scheme, drafted OL and then drafted Zeke.

I'm glad the team finally got on board with what some fans were hoping they would have done several years ago. When we were screaming about Garrett and Linehan being 'pass happy' while the staunch defenders told us everything was fine and we didn't know what we were talking about. Vindication feels great.

 

[Idgit]

I was with you with that line of thinking on draft day and even part of this season but now that I've seen it play out a little I will have to disagree.

In a league where most teams are watered down and kind of the same the Dallas Cowboys do something unique that no other team does and we have high pedigree at the OL and RB position.

Also, it's kind of what this franchise has always been built on.

So I won't question the Zeke pick anymore unless something crazy happens because it has been an absolute shot of adrenaline that this franchise has needed.

The way it's actually worked out, because Mo's played so well and because Bosa was gone, it might actually be the case that we got the best possible outcome anyway. I was playing the odds and wanted Bosa first, with him gone and Mo and Carr potentially gone next year, I wanted Ramsey next. I'd definitely have gotten the RB in the 3rd round. But Bosa was gone, and it's looking more likely that Mo can both play and be had for a reasonable risk for the next few years. That pretty much makes Zeke the optimal pick in my book, too.

But it's still a case of us making a decision that's tactically not the best move and it working out anyway. Sometimes that happens. When it does, you just don't look the gift horse in the mouth, you give it a helmet and hand it the ball.

 

[Doomsday101]

I think people love stats yet not all teams are built the same. I think some stats mean more to some teams and the offense they are playing, than it does for another team. In the Dallas offense I think TOP means more to them than some other teams. Yet we take the stat and treat them as if they are equal in the importance or lack of importance.

 

[waldoputty]

Obligatory clarification that the argument is never that rushing is no longer important in the modern game and only that increased rushing effectiveness doesn't make you more likely to win. It's obvious that there are rushing situations and that it plays an important role in any offense.

Really, though, you pivoted to rushing efficiency after that first sentence, and that's what your post is about. I think what gets lost is that there are lots of different ways teams put themselves into positions to pass effectively. One of those ways might be getting in position to face more 8 man fronts. That doesn't mean that's the only way to get into an advantageous situation for passing effectively. It also doesn't necessarily follow that you need to spend premium resources at RB to get teams into 8 man fronts. We saw as much last year with Darren McFadden. The argument is, if you can get into the looks with a Randle or a McFadden, how much does having an Elliott or a Gurley help you out? Or if you can find other ways to get into situations where you can pass the ball more effectively with less expensive resources (let's say you get that speed WR at the top of the 2nd), you can spend your more limited resources making it harder for other teams to pass effectively against you (eg, getting that impact edge rusher we won't have on the roster).

You also have to look at the delta you get with the pick. How much does the delta between that edge rusher and your next man up improve your passing efficiency differential over the delta between a RB and your RB alternative. And then you look at the scarcity of impact players at DE or CB after the first round of the draft v. the availability at the RB position. Is it easier to find a Danielle Hunter than it is a David Johnson or a Jay Ajayi?

I love what Zeke brings to the team. Above, all, I'm really happy we didn't whiff on a top-5 pick. He also happens to have a temperament that's added a lot of aggression and physicality to the entire offense, which is something that goes beyond the position he plays. He pass blocks really really well, and he generally doesn't fumble. I am 100% not complaining. That said, I still think it was not the best tactical decision to take him at #4. And I don't think I"m crazy for saying that.

When you say likely to win, I will equate that as scoring points.
I believe the ability to run SHOULD strongly correlate to the ability to score points.
My point here is that the rushing effectiveness statistical parameters (that I am aware of) are flawed and do not truly reflect the ability to run.
They also do not reflect the resources taken away from the rest of the team when the resources are used to improve the run. The change in resource allocation would also affect our ability to score and ability to win.
For example, a $10M running back may prevent us from signing an impact DE. That is ultimately reflected in points scored or ability to win in a roundabout way.

I agree with the correct allocation of resources argument you made. One has to take in account the value of the pick based on the position. At the same time, when a team has already invested 3 1st round picks to the OL, and need a top pick to significantly improve yards after contact, that is a drastically different situation than a team with only a mediocre OL - yet their yards per carry could the same. Some even try to say RB has shorter NFL life compared to a CB, but that is mostly moot due to the length of NFL rookie contracts.

It does not make sense to use these statistics and regressions do justify that because the statistics are flawed. Two teams with the same yard-per-carry could have vastly different 'ability' to rush. One could have a lousy passing game, allowing the defense to load the box. The second could just have a bad RB. There are many more examples. YET, a brute force regression will treat them the same way. Unless you tell me there is an extremely complex model that takes account of all these parameters, but that is not what I am seeing.

 

[Idgit]

When you say likely to win, I will equate that as scoring points.
I believe the ability to run SHOULD strongly correlate to the ability to score points.
My point here is that the rushing effectiveness statistical parameters (that I am aware of) are flawed and do not truly reflect the ability to run.
They also do not reflect the resources taken away from the rest of the team when the resources are used to improve the run. The change in resource allocation would also affect our ability to score and ability to win.
For example, a $10M running back may prevent us from signing an impact DE. That is ultimately reflected in points scored or ability to win in a roundabout way.

I agree with the correct allocation of resources argument you made. One has to take in account the value of the pick based on the position. At the same time, when a team has already invested 3 1st round picks to the OL, and need a top pick to significantly improve yards after contact, that is a drastically different situation than a team with only a mediocre OL - yet their yards per carry could the same. Some even try to say RB has shorter NFL life compared to a CB, but that is mostly moot due to the length of NFL rookie contracts.

It does not make sense to use these statistics and regressions do justify that because the statistics are flawed. Two teams with the same yard-per-carry could have vastly different 'ability' to rush. One could have a lousy passing game, allowing the defense to load the box. The second could just have a bad RB. There are many more examples. YET, a brute force regression will treat them the same way. Unless you tell me there is an extremely complex model that takes account of all these parameters, but that is not what I am seeing.

Hey, if it's possible to have a level of rushing effectiveness that belies the regressions and lets us pass more effectively as a result, that's great. Or if we eventually unpack that statistic to understand better that some elements of rushing effectiveness actually do correlate significant with winning, that's great, too. We've already seen that that's the case with goal line and short yardage rushing effectiveness, to an extent.

Until we do, though, I'm focusing on the areas where we know the team to be deficient and where we already know the correlation exists and is easy to address as a result. For the Cowboys, that's on making it harder for the other guys to pass effectively against us. We know we can improve there, and we we know how to improve it. We need multiple impact rush defenders along the front 7. Once that's done and we're looking around for the next most obvious area to improve, I'm all ears.

 

[waldoputty]

Hey, if it's possible to have a level of rushing effectiveness that belies the regressions and lets us pass more effectively as a result, that's great. Or if we eventually unpack that statistic to understand better that some elements of rushing effectiveness actually do correlate significant with winning, that's great, too. We've already seen that that's the case with goal line and short yardage rushing effectiveness, to an extent.

Until we do, though, I'm focusing on the areas where we know the team to be deficient and where we already know the correlation exists and is easy to address as a result. For the Cowboys, that's on making it harder for the other guys to pass effectively against us. We know we can improve there, and we we know how to improve it. We need multiple impact rush defenders along the front 7. Once that's done and we're looking around for the next most obvious area to improve, I'm all ears.

Right, I just think it is silly to rely on stats to make certain points that are obvious.
Or to totally go against conventional wisdom when the statistical analysis is fundamental flawed.

The weakness on the team are obvious:
1. pass rush - hopefully a couple players come back by the end of the season
2. MLB against the run - hopefully a player comes back by the end of the season and i am not saying Mcclain.
3. Dak's inexperience - needs to play
4. Romo's ability to stay healthy - hard to figure out - perhaps only put him in positions that are less risky
5. both starting CBs, wr2, wr3, backup G, RT, SS are positions to be addressed in addition to the obvious need for DE.

 

[Idgit]

Right, I just think it is silly to rely on stats to make certain points that are obvious.
Or to totally go against conventional wisdom when the statistical analysis is fundamental flawed.

The weakness on the team are obvious:
1. pass rush - hopefully a couple players come back by the end of the season
2. MLB against the run - hopefully a player comes back by the end of the season and i am not saying Mcclain.
3. Dak's inexperience - needs to play
4. Romo's ability to stay healthy - hard to figure out - perhaps only put him in positions that are less risky
5. both starting CBs, wr2, wr3, backup G, RT, SS are positions to be addressed in addition to the obvious need for DE.

You're definitely right that there's a point where the usefulness of a particular set of measurements has topped out. And people measure the wrong things or come to the wrong conclusions based off of their measurements all the time. It's just that the pass rush limitations have been so obvious for so long, it's really hard not seeing them addressed when you know how much it could help.

 

[waldoputty]

You're definitely right that there's a point where the usefulness of a particular set of measurements has topped out. And people measure the wrong things or come to the wrong conclusions based off of their measurements all the time. It's just that the pass rush limitations have been so obvious for so long, it's really hard not seeing them addressed when you know how much it could help.

I agree with the pass rush need.
However, beyond Bosa, who was highly regarded that we did not pick?

On the FA front, I was frustrated that we did not get the older DE also - forgot his name.
I think FO had some issues with long term value vs. near term impact.
Part of it may be due to unexpect success of the team this year in terms of contention.

 

[AdamJT13]

3) Beyond how the defense plays, rushing efficiency is affected obviously by the offense play calling as well as the score. If you are ahead late in the game (e.g. 4th quarter), then the offense will rush to take time off the clock. During those rushes, the defense is expecting the run, thereby lowering the rushing efficiency. Again this takes away any 'correlation'.

This is false. Teams' rushing efficiency actually goes UP in those situations, not down. (It might help if you did some actual research.)

And all you've done is agree that it essentially does not matter what you average in yards per carry, and it does not matter what you allow in yards per carry. Neither of those has much effect, if any, on whether you win or lose. Whether it's because YPC is a "flawed stat" (just as all stats have some type of flaw) doesn't make a difference. The point is that overall rushing efficiency is virtually meaningless when it comes to whether you win or lose in the NFL.

What actually matters is how effective you are when you pass the ball, either by choice or by necessity, and how well you stop the opponent from passing. If you pass the ball better than your opponent, you'll win about 80 percent of the time (or, in our case, 97.8 percent of the time). If you run the ball better than your opponent, it's still a coin flip whether you win or lose.

 

[Nightman]

Here we go ........welcome to 20 pages

 

[waldoputty]

This is false. Teams' rushing efficiency actually goes UP in those situations, not down. (It might help if you did some actual research.)

And all you've done is agree that it essentially does not matter what you average in yards per carry, and it does not matter what you allow in yards per carry. Neither of those has much effect, if any, on whether you win or lose. Whether it's because YPC is a "flawed stat" (just as all stats have some type of flaw) doesn't make a difference. The point is that overall rushing efficiency is virtually meaningless when it comes to whether you win or lose in the NFL.

What actually matters is how effective you are when you pass the ball, either by choice or by necessity, and how well you stop the opponent from passing. If you pass the ball better than your opponent, you'll win about 80 percent of the time (or, in our case, 97.8 percent of the time). If you run the ball better than your opponent, it's still a coin flip whether you win or lose.

The point I was trying to make is that the statistics YPC is very flawed as a statistic parameter for making predictions about winning.
So trying to use a flawed statistic to make a point is not meaningful.
Just because you cannot honestly use something in a regression does not mean it is meaningless.

A further point is that the ability to run (not the silly statistics) is very important for passing efficiency.
I think everyone agrees that passing efficiency is also very important to winning.

 

[Hardline]

It's a undeniable fact a strong ground game increases your chances at winning. Every football expert in the country will agree.If you watched games broacasted by Summerall and Madden they preached it like the gospel. .
On the other hand your defense still has to do its job.

 

[visionary]

When you say likely to win, I will equate that as scoring points.
I believe the ability to run SHOULD strongly correlate to the ability to score points.
My point here is that the rushing effectiveness statistical parameters (that I am aware of) are flawed and do not truly reflect the ability to run.
They also do not reflect the resources taken away from the rest of the team when the resources are used to improve the run. The change in resource allocation would also affect our ability to score and ability to win.
For example, a $10M running back may prevent us from signing an impact DE. That is ultimately reflected in points scored or ability to win in a roundabout way.

I agree with the correct allocation of resources argument you made. One has to take in account the value of the pick based on the position. At the same time, when a team has already invested 3 1st round picks to the OL, and need a top pick to significantly improve yards after contact, that is a drastically different situation than a team with only a mediocre OL - yet their yards per carry could the same. Some even try to say RB has shorter NFL life compared to a CB, but that is mostly moot due to the length of NFL rookie contracts.

It does not make sense to use these statistics and regressions do justify that because the statistics are flawed. Two teams with the same yard-per-carry could have vastly different 'ability' to rush. One could have a lousy passing game, allowing the defense to load the box. The second could just have a bad RB. There are many more examples. YET, a brute force regression will treat them the same way. Unless you tell me there is an extremely complex model that takes account of all these parameters, but that is not what I am seeing.

You have to remember that you are talking to a poster whose football message board "career" hinges on telling us how the running game is not important so don't expect any sense

 

[Idgit]

You have to remember that you are talking to a poster whose football message board "career" hinges on telling us how the running game is not important so don't expect any sense

People don't have message board careers, visionary. They just get together because they're interested in a common topic and they discuss things. Or they take pot shots and leave.

But again, because this somehow always gets confused for no reason in these threads, the argument is not and has never been that 'the running game is not important.' The discussion is regarding whether or not it makes sense to spend limited resources on being able to run the ball more effectively when the team has other specific personnel limitations that actually do have a much greater impact on who wins and who loses a game that we could be addressing, instead.

 

[waldoputty]

You have to remember that you are talking to a poster whose football message board "career" hinges on telling us how the running game is not important so don't expect any sense

The misuse of statistics in this scenario reminds me of the story about the 3 guys who drove over the cliff because the GPS told them to...

There is a lot of use for statistics, and I used to use it all the time.
But this situation is far too complex for a simple regression with 2 parameters.