Rushing statistics and their correlation to sucess

[T-RO]

It is a passing league. League-wide 58.5% of plays are passes. 70% of yards are gained via the pass. A great number of games are decided at the end of the 4th quarter where passing rates peak.

Yes, a good running game helps keep defenses honest and can improve passing efficiency. Yes having a running game helps red zone efficiency. Yes running the ball effectively makes an offense better.

But when teams are looking to craft their roster...and must consider allocation of limited funds...the biggest bang for the buck is a draft pick or a dollar spent on the passing game.

 

[CVN68_Cowboys]

The main problem I have with stats like this that are taken league wide is that I don't care about league trends. I care about how much running well helps MY team, which it does greatly. That attempted reverse correlation above leaves out a ton of context.

 

[T-RO]

Cowboys have analytics.
Do you think they would have drafted Zeke if they relied on a simple statistical regression of YPC vs. score?
That is a total misuse of regression analysis.
The rushing situation is far too complex to model, as least with the tools I see available.
Just because something is too hard to model accurate, it does not make it untrue.

The Cowboys obviously employ analytics. But I suspect the stats that Jerry is most interested in are ticket sales and tv ratings.

And look...Zeke helps every pass play. He is either one of the blockers up front or he is an extremely effective weapon out of the backfield. The threat of run also helps the passing game.

Zeke is helping out with all the analytics: ticket sales, ratings, social media buzz, numbers in the pass game and run game.

 

[AdamJT13]

You agreed that rushing efficiency is flawed as a variable.

I agree that it is meaningless. But it is no more "flawed" than any other simple statistic in football (a manufactured stat such as passer rating is more flawed, however).

Yet you insist on making conclusions based on it.
Does not make sense.

Again, my only conclusion is that it it is meaningless -- same as your conclusion.

Whether it is "flawed" doesn't matter to me. Passing efficiency stats would have the same "flaws," but by no means are they meaningless. They almost always decide which team wins or loses, "flawed" or not.

Based on your statistic analysis, you probably think draft Zeke would not make a difference.
Is that right?

No, that's not right, and I stated that before and after he was drafted.

What does not make much of a difference is his overall rushing efficiency, or our team's overall rushing efficiency, or our defense's overall effectiveness against the run. None of those things have much of an effect on whether we win or lose. What matters is whether we pass the ball better than the opponent -- and Elliott can affect that, as can every other player on offense or defense.

 

[CVN68_Cowboys]

The Cowboys obviously employ analytics. But I suspect the stats that Jerry is most interested in are ticket sales and tv ratings.

And look...Zeke helps every pass play. He is either one of the blockers up front or he is an extremely effective weapon out of the backfield. The threat of run also helps the passing game.

Zeke is helping out with all the analytics: ticket sales, ratings, social media buzz, numbers in the pass game and run game.

As we've seen the past 20 years, ticket sales, "buzz", and ratings for the Cowboys are inelastic regardless of whether they're winning or not. It's pretty amazing, but it's definitely a thing. A top 5 pick for Dallas is going to be a big deal across the spectrum no matter who it is.

 

[waldoputty]

Again, you can say the same thing about any stat. Your conclusion must be that all stats are flawed and meaningless.



So wouldn't that create a correlation between bad passing and bad rushing? And wouldn't the opposite be true -- that if the pass efficiency was high, teams couldn't load up against the run, thereby increasing rushing efficiency?



So you're saying there's no way to effectively stop the pass? And that using extra defensive backs isn't helpful against the pass?

I would argue passing efficiency is less flawed than rushing efficiency.
More 'externalities' can affect the running game.
Extra DBs definitely affect the pass, but I suspect not as well like 8 in the box shuts down the run.
But people may disagree here...
I think some statistics people actually argue passing efficiency is essentially the 'end result'.
So there is little sense to use it as the 'cause' for winning but it is actually close to 'just winning'.

Of course I think there is a linkage between good running ability and good passing game.
However, note that I am not using a statistic because I dont think there is a good one.
No one is saying passing is not important.

 

[T-RO]

As we've seen the past 20 years, ticket sales, "buzz", and ratings for the Cowboys are inelastic regardless of whether they're winning or not. It's pretty amazing, but it's definitely a thing. A top 5 pick for Dallas is going to be a big deal across the spectrum no matter who it is.

There is a ton more buzz and ratings boost from a selection like Zeke compared to a pick Terence Newman or Tyron Smith.

Inelastic ratings/sales/buzz/uniform sales? Hardly. The Cowboys are always going to get the most attention but this year they have dominated the dialog and attention in a way we've never seen.

 

[waldoputty]

I agree that it is meaningless. But it is no more "flawed" than any other simple statistic in football (a manufactured stat such as passer rating is more flawed, however).

Again, my only conclusion is that it it is meaningless -- same as your conclusion.

Whether it is "flawed" doesn't matter to me. Passing efficiency stats would have the same "flaws," but by no means are they meaningless. They almost always decide which team wins or loses, "flawed" or not.

No, that's not right, and I stated that before and after he was drafted.

What does not make much of a difference is his overall rushing efficiency, or our team's overall rushing efficiency, or our defense's overall effectiveness against the run. None of those things have much of an effect on whether we win or lose. What matters is whether we pass the ball better than the opponent -- and Elliott can affect that, as can every other player on offense or defense.

So we agree the regression with rushing efficiency statistic is useless.
The difference is the conclusion.
My point is that the ability to run is critical to success, even if there is no available silly parameter to measure and test it with.

Simple question - how does Elliott affect the passing efficiency or whether we win or not?
Please list in the order of importance:
1. running ability
2. pass catching ability
3. blocking ability
4. team morale due to his "feed me" celebration

If one chooses running ability, then one is agreeing that running ability is important to the ability to win. How to test that, I have no idea.

 

[waldoputty]

As we've seen the past 20 years, ticket sales, "buzz", and ratings for the Cowboys are inelastic regardless of whether they're winning or not. It's pretty amazing, but it's definitely a thing. A top 5 pick for Dallas is going to be a big deal across the spectrum no matter who it is.

Really, Cowboys make money no matter what lol

 

[AdamJT13]

The main problem I have with stats like this that are taken league wide is that I don't care about league trends. I care about how much running well helps MY team, which it does greatly.

The team that has passed the ball more efficiently has won 44 of our past 45 games. The team that has run the ball more efficiently is 24-21.

That's not league-wide. That's this team. YOUR team.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

There are always two things lost in the discussion:

1) Running the ball well can make it easier to do things that do have a strong correlation to winning.

2) We are dealing with aggregate measures here. When you have a historically good offensive line blocking for a generational type talent at running back, you might have an outlier.

 

[waldoputty]

The team that has passed the ball more efficiently has won 44 of our past 45 games. The team that has run the ball more efficiently is 24-21.

That's not league-wide. That's this team. YOUR team.

I dont think there is any argument that passing efficiently is very important.
As I mentioned, some statistics people consider it the 'end result' rather than a cause.

The only issue is when you say rushing does not matter to winning.

 

[waldoputty]

There are always two things lost in the discussion:

1) Running the ball well can make it easier to do things that do have a strong correlation to winning.

2) We are dealing with aggregate measures here. When you have a historically good offensive line blocking for a generational type talent at running back, you might have an outlier.

Lets hope Elliott last longer than 3 years.
Outliers are important, but in this case, the statistical case is flawed when the stat used for the regression is very flawed.

 

[AdamJT13]

My point is that the ability to run is critical to success.

So do we have an "ability to run" more on same days than on others? And do any of our opponents have more of an "ability to run" than we do?

If "ability to run" can't be observed or measured, then it seems even more meaningless than a "flawed" statistic.

 

[waldoputty]

So do we have an "ability to run" more on same days than on others? And do any of our opponents have more of an "ability to run" than we do?

If "ability to run" can't be observed or measured, then it seems even more meaningless than a "flawed" statistic.

Ability to run is no statistic parameter I know of.
Again, just because you cannot measure or test it, it does not make something not true.
Just because the unified field theory did not include gravity, it does not mean gravity does not exist.
I am being silly here, obviously.

But you should think about my question - how does Elliott affect the passing efficiency or whether we win or not?
Please list in the order of importance:
1. running ability
2. pass catching ability
3. blocking ability
4. team morale due to his "feed me" celebration

I suspect you agree with me that it is Elliott's ability to run that is the most important.
If so, then you are agreeing that running ability is important to the ability to win.

 

[AdamJT13]

I dont think there is any argument that passing efficiently is very important.
As I mentioned, some statistics people consider it the 'end result' rather than a cause.

I've never seen any analysis that suggests that passing efficiency is caused by winning. Quite the opposite. Teams that pass well get the lead, then their efficiency goes DOWN later in games. Teams that pass poorly fall behind, and their efficiency goes UP late in games. If passing well was the result of winning (or being ahead), the opposite would be true.

The only issue is when you say rushing does not matter to winning.

Rushing EFFICIENCY does not matter to winning. And you agree.

 

[waldoputty]

I've never seen any analysis that suggests that passing efficiency is caused by winning. Quite the opposite. Teams that pass well get the lead, then their efficiency goes DOWN later in games. Teams that pass poorly fall behind, and their efficiency goes UP late in games. If passing well was the result of winning (or being ahead), the opposite would be true.

Rushing EFFICIENCY does not matter to winning. And you agree.

I never said winning causes good passing efficiency.
I said some statistics people equate good passing and winning - that passing efficiency is the end result just like winning.
One only needs to google a bit to find these articles.

I said Rushing Efficiency is a worthless statistics for running your regression.
If you put garbage in, you get garbage out.

But you should think about my question - how does Elliott affect the passing efficiency or whether we win or not?
Please list in the order of importance:
1. running ability
2. pass catching ability
3. blocking ability
4. team morale due to his "feed me" celebration

I suspect you agree with me that it is Elliott's ability to run that is the most important.
If so, then you are agreeing that running ability is important to the ability to win.

 

[AdamJT13]

Ability to run is no statistic parameter I know of.

It not only has no statistical parameter, it has no parameters at all. You can pretend it to be whatever you want.

You might as well say that the key to winning is to have a "blue aura." (Fact: the team that has a blue aura is 118-0-2 this season.) Just because we can't identify what a "blue aura" is, can't observe it and can't measure it doesn't make it not true. It's obviously critical to success.

 

[Doomsday101]

It is a passing league. League-wide 58.5% of plays are passes. 70% of yards are gained via the pass. A great number of games are decided at the end of the 4th quarter where passing rates peak.

Yes, a good running game helps keep defenses honest and can improve passing efficiency. Yes having a running game helps red zone efficiency. Yes running the ball effectively makes an offense better.

But when teams are looking to craft their roster...and must consider allocation of limited funds...the biggest bang for the buck is a draft pick or a dollar spent on the passing game.

Except in Dallas where we run the ball more than we throw the ball. I will never say the pass is not important but if Dallas is not running the ball effectively we are not going to win a lot of games. People use these stats to prove a point yet not all teams are built the same way. The run is critical to Dallas where as it may not be as critical to a team like New Orleans who has thrown the ball 308 times compared to only 170 rushing. If all teams ran the same offense then I would be more inclined to agree with this but taking overall NFL stats and putting them on all 32 teams is ridicules. Saying it is a passing league yet teams like Dallas lean heavy on the running game to Dallas the run is important.

 

[waldoputty]

It not only has no statistical parameter, it has no parameters at all. You can pretend it to be whatever you want.

You might as well say that the key to winning is to have a "blue aura." (Fact: the team that has a blue aura is 118-0-2 this season.) Just because we can't identify what a "blue aura" is, can't observe it and can't measure it doesn't make it not true. It's obviously critical to success.

I think you should stop hiding behind your statistics knowledge.
Nothing personal, but the argument is at Statistics 101 level - may be even in the 1st month.
Most here have no training in statistics and can be fooled sometimes.
No one with any training will buy it.
I used to use statistics heavily and had formal training up to graduate level econometrics.

You cannot bring yourself to answer this question - how does Elliott affect the passing efficiency or whether we win or not?
Please list in the order of importance:
1. running ability
2. pass catching ability
3. blocking ability
4. team morale due to his "feed me" celebration

I suspect you agree with me that it is Elliott's ability to run that is the most important.
If so, then you are agreeing that running ability is important to the ability to win.
If so, then all these statistics BS is just what it is - BS