PDA

View Full Version : Eat this stat



Superchop 7
11-26-2011, 05:18 PM
Since 2000, teams are 223-19 (.921) with 30 or more rushes and 20 or fewer passes.

Since 1970, teams have a .938 winning percentage with 50 or more rushes and 10 or fewer passes.

Source....Broncos Public Relations

BroncoTech
11-26-2011, 05:28 PM
I can't believe there is enough sample data for the stat to produce that result. Difficult to believe there's more than a few games that meet the criteria.

Slick
11-26-2011, 05:50 PM
I can't believe there is enough sample data for the stat to produce that result. Difficult to believe there's more than a few games that meet the criteria.

Once in every 11.5 games if my math is correct.

Northman
11-26-2011, 06:00 PM
Pittsburgh- 40 passes, 23 rushes
Green Bay- 39 passes, 13 rushes

Winner: Green Bay

New Orleans- 39 passes, 18 rushes
Indianapolis Colts- 45 passes, 19 rushes

Winner: New Orleans

Pittsburgh- 30 passes, 20 rushes
Arizona- 43 passes, 10 rushes

Winner: Pittsburgh

NY Giants- 34 passes, 22 rushes
New England- 48 passes, 15 rushes

Winne: NY Giants

Indianapolis- 38 passes, 42 rushes
Chicago- 28 passes, 19 rushes

Winner: Indianapolis

Seattle- 49 passes, 25 passes
Pittsburgh- 21 passes, 33 rushes

Winner: Pittsburgh

New England- 33 passes, 28 rushes
Philidelphia- 51 passes, 17 rushes

Winner: New England

Oakland- 44 passes, 11 rushes
Tampa Bay- 34 passes, 42 rushes

Winner: Tampa Bay


Certainly some method to the madness of what Super posted. However, in the last two Super Bowls the winners passed more than ran. The lowest amount of passes thrown was from Pitt against Seattle but certainly thats not the norm. The average amount of passes thrown is at least 30+. Thats certainly more than 8.

bcbronc
11-26-2011, 08:27 PM
wait, teams with a lead try to run the ball? And teams that are behind tend to pass? IIInnnntttteeeeerrrrreeeeesssssttttttiiiiiiiinnnnn nnng.

SM19
11-26-2011, 08:29 PM
wait, teams with a lead try to run the ball? And teams that are behind tend to pass? IIInnnntttteeeeerrrrreeeeesssssttttttiiiiiiiinnnnn nnng.

Yep. Anyone who thinks this means running more than you pass makes you more likely to win has the causation backward.

Agent of Orange
11-26-2011, 08:38 PM
Yep. Anyone who thinks this means running more than you pass makes you more likely to win has the causation backward.

Except that the data he provided applied to scenarios where there were very few pass attempts. Because of this, these scenarios are yielding scenarios where they're running the whole game, not just when ahead.

Superchop 7
11-26-2011, 08:47 PM
Except that the data he provided applied to scenarios where there were very few pass attempts. Because of this, these scenarios are yielding scenarios where they're running the whole game, not just when ahead.

__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________--

YEP.......if you don't think there is a direct correlation, your kidding yourself.

If you are effective running the ball......chances are great that you will win.

And this is in the modern era.

Locnar
11-26-2011, 10:11 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm gonna have to throw up this stat. It smells like sweaty ballsack.

Most teams that come out running strong and are falling behind have to play catch up. So they come out slinging guns which totally elimnates the losing probability out of this equation..

atwater27
11-26-2011, 10:16 PM
Yep. Anyone who thinks this means running more than you pass makes you more likely to win has the causation backward.

There you go with that Merovingian crap again...

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_e26qGJKCD2s/S8GsDxDYMbI/AAAAAAAABFY/Sna_qoJkEnc/s1600/The+Matrix+Revolutions%5B(031767)16-33-43%5D.JPG&sa=X&ei=Y6vRTt-yD6OqiALwsbXUCw&ved=0CAwQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFzvAFTEvZRDeKOa-MC86HGQNTyzQ

bcbronc
11-26-2011, 10:20 PM
__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________--

YEP.......if you don't think there is a direct correlation, your kidding yourself.

If you are effective running the ball......chances are great that you will win.

And this is in the modern era.

that is some pretty profound insight. Next you'll be saying if you have success running the ball early, you should stick with it. This thread just might change the NFL as we know it.

wayninja
11-26-2011, 10:47 PM
That was a delicious stat. Have any other out of context stats for us to snack on?

Agent of Orange
11-26-2011, 10:49 PM
that is some pretty profound insight. Next you'll be saying if you have success running the ball early, you should stick with it. This thread just might change the NFL as we know it.

Actually, there are a lot of people who are insisting that you have to pass to win now because "it's a passing league".

And actually the stat related to running the ball 50 times is a little surprising in that, one would think you would need more balance on offense to have success. That winning % is extremely high in that scenario. I'd be interested in knowing the sample size though.

In the scenario where he mentioned passing 20 times and running 30 times, this could easily be what you were previously talking about regarding running out the clock once you get a lead (but not every time). But still, that would suggest they were relatively balanced prior to running clock, which, again, speaks to the suggestion that you have to surrender yourself to passing the ball.

I think that, if anything, this puts the suggestion out there that if you have an elite QB, being pass happy is fine. But if you don't, it's more than suitable to heavily rely on the run.

Superchop 7
11-27-2011, 12:17 AM
Stat is 30 wins vs 2 losses. (50 rush attempts)

Superchop 7
11-27-2011, 12:37 AM
As a refresher, teams that have a meaningful rushing advantage over their opponent in a NFL game cover the pointspread approximately 75% of the time (I have a 10-year data base to support). And it’s even stronger when teams run the ball at least 30 times in a game.

So here is some additional evidence in support of a strong running game. In Week 11 NFL action (Monday pending), teams that rushed the ball 30 times or more went 7-0-1 ATS (yes, our top-play on Atlanta was the push). Teams that rushed the ball 20 times or less went 1-5-1 ATS (yes, Tennessee with 14 running plays was the push). Over the past four weeks, this simple profile has seen teams that run the ball 30 or more times go 36-4-1 ATS (90%) and teams that run the ball 20 or less times go 4-21-1 ATS (84%).

Now who else would provide you this type of information to better assist you in your handicapping and pursuit of profit? More importantly, who else can utilize this information and properly project pointspread prognosis winners on a consistent basis with proven processes and profiles?

Control the line of scrimmage, the ball, the chains and the clock and a team’s chances of winning are great. And your chances of covering the pointspread are even greater if you can properly project this fundamental advantage at the point of attack.

Source: sportsmemo.com

Northman
11-27-2011, 01:25 AM
This isnt actually new news in terms of football 101. Running the ball well has always been an offenses best friend. Look at how much difference it made in our SB wins with Elway. However, there still has to be a balance. Looking at the stats i provided with the last few Super Bowls in only a couple of instances did the team that won have more rushing than passing. In the other games it was pretty balanced attack aside from the last two SB in which both teams ran very little. But, it also depends on the circumstance in which the teams run the most. How much of it was early in the game vs running out the clock later? Its the kind of stats that need to be broken down more to get a clearer picture of its affect. In the Lions loss Denver ran 31 times and passed 39 times.

karnage
11-27-2011, 01:55 AM
This isnt actually new news in terms of football 101. Running the ball well has always been an offenses best friend. Look at how much difference it made in our SB wins with Elway. However, there still has to be a balance. Looking at the stats i provided with the last few Super Bowls in only a couple of instances did the team that won have more rushing than passing. In the other games it was pretty balanced attack aside from the last two SB in which both teams ran very little. But, it also depends on the circumstance in which the teams run the most. How much of it was early in the game vs running out the clock later? Its the kind of stats that need to be broken down more to get a clearer picture of its affect. In the Lions loss Denver ran 31 times and passed 39 times.

I think the running is fine, as long Tebow actually develops and shows major strides in the passes he is allowed...this team is just winning how it can at the moment, and even though I want them to win...I don't really think of them as a Super Bowl team right now to be honest....just like with Denver churning out odd wins...we still don't know if the D is going to stay like this long term or just hit a hot streak and will revert or slip and be a team that gives up 20-24+ more consistently...look at the 2009 D from the first 6 games..

Ravage!!!
11-27-2011, 03:54 AM
50% of the time, its 100% correct!

Joel
11-27-2011, 12:47 PM
I can't believe there is enough sample data for the stat to produce that result. Difficult to believe there's more than a few games that meet the criteria.
It is plausible enough to me, given the time frame, but, as The Hidden Game of Football observed 25 years ago, the stat is misleading: Teams with the lead pound the rock in the 4th quarter to further tire already weary defences, keep the clock moving and lower the risk of turnovers; teams trailing late throw lots of desperation passes that more often than not fail to save them. As the authors of the aforementioned book put it, running the ball is thus often a symptom rather than cause of winning. If a game is tight, even a "successful" passing drive can backfire: A team leading by 3 with 5:00 left may come to regret a 50 yard passing drive that only chews up a couple minutes, ends in a FG and allows their opponents a chance to win the game with a TD.

Others have, of course, already noted the correlation vs. causality issues with the stat, but I thought it might be informative to note it has been exhaustively studied and documented. Ball control offense is still sound football, for the same reasons teams with the lead invariably employ it in the second half (sometimes too much; letting the D know your playcalls gives them tremendous assistance stopping you, hence the importance of balance.) Unless a team is designed for it, however, it is not as simple as "as long as we run more than we pass we will win." It's like the old bit about both teams praying for victory before the game: It is guaranteed that (at least) one of them will be disappointed.

All that said, it is encouraging that Fox does design his teams to play ball control offense with strong Ds that keep the game tight enough for that to work.

broncobryce
11-27-2011, 01:29 PM
Yep. Anyone who thinks this means running more than you pass makes you more likely to win has the causation backward.

Well, John Fox believes that. Running game and defense is his forte. That's obvious.

Northman
11-27-2011, 01:34 PM
Well, John Fox believes that. Running game and defense is his forte. That's obvious.

Unfortuantely, it hasnt paid off for Fox in terms of championships.

broncobryce
11-27-2011, 02:02 PM
Unfortuantely, it hasnt paid off for Fox in terms of championships.

Not yet. But I'm rooting for him.

Superchop 7
11-27-2011, 02:24 PM
Teams have sold-out to stop the run for 20 years. It is the top priority for defenses.

What I see with the read-option and veer is "multiple" gaps they have to contain.

This is nothing like stopping the single wing, it is much more difficult.

SM19
11-27-2011, 03:57 PM
Except that the data he provided applied to scenarios where there were very few pass attempts. Because of this, these scenarios are yielding scenarios where they're running the whole game, not just when ahead.

There are really two sets of data here, each with a slightly different explanation. The first set, including games with 20 or fewer passes and 30 or more rushes since 1970, could easily contain a number of games in which the winning team started with a more balanced offense and went to the run after taking a solid lead. And even though going back to 1970 increases the sample size, it reduces the usefulness of this data for telling us anything about football today by including so much data from a time when passing was much more difficult. Without knowing for certain, I'd bet that the games in the sample are in fact backloaded toward 1970.

The real story of the second set is just how few games there are in it. On average, teams have called 10 or fewer passes and 50 or more runs in about 1% of games since 2000, or roughly two and a half games a season. If this were a viable way to win games consistently, it stands to reason that we'd see it attempted a lot more often. So why do teams that do it have such a great record? Simple: Teams will only stick with an overwhelmingly run-heavy strategy so long as they're winning, while teams that fall behind will switch to the pass to catch up. In short, teams don't win because they stick with the run, they stick with the run because they're winning.


Well, John Fox believes that. Running game and defense is his forte. That's obvious.

If he believes that specifically about the Broncos, that's fine, and he's right. Our passing game right now is so bad that each passing play we call slightly decreases the number of points we can expect to score, and we're not even calling that many. But I hope he doesn't believe it as a general matter, because he'd be demonstrably wrong. Research on play-calling balance has shown time and again that NFL teams, even with the ongoing trend toward passing, are still running too much and passing too little on average.

I Eat Staples
11-27-2011, 09:14 PM
That's because if you're winning you don't need to pass as much. When you're behind you're going to pass more.

That's not necessarily the reason you were winning or losing.