Jump to content
Matts4313

The Run Game doesnt matter

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, DaBoys said:
cor·re·la·tion
/ˌkôrəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
  1. a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.
    "research showed a clear correlation between Zeke Elliott rushing for over 100 yards and the Dallas Cowboys winning"

 

There isnt one. 

What happened to our team when Romo got injured? What about Murray? 

Why are you dismissing hundreds of games worth of data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, plan9misfit said:

analyst /

Also - I literally quoted multiple analyst saying it. 

And the trend with rules and play calling also show its true. 

The success of Walsh, the WCO, and the implementation of all the offenses in the league show it. 

Soooooo.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DaBoys said:

Ezekiel Elliott 100-Yard Rushing Games

The following is a list of Ezekiel Elliott's career 100-yard rushing games. Postseason games are listed in bold.

Number of 100-Yard Games: 21 (19 regular season, 2 postseason)
Team Record in 100-Yard Games: 17-4 (16-3 regular season, 1-1 postseason)

 

 
1. 09/25/16 vs. CHI
2. 10/02/16 @ SF
3. 10/09/16 vs. CIN
4. 10/16/16 @ GB
5. 11/13/16 @ PIT
6. 12/11/16 @ NYG
7. 12/18/16 vs. TB
8. 01/15/17 vs. GB
9. 09/10/17 vs. NYG
10. 10/08/17 vs. GB
11. 10/22/17 @ SF
12. 10/29/17 @ WAS
13. 12/31/17 @ PHI
14. 09/23/18 @ SEA
15. 09/30/18 vs. DET
16. 10/14/18 vs. JAX
17. 11/11/18 @ PHI
18. 11/18/18 @ ATL
19. 11/22/18 vs. WAS
20. 12/09/18 vs. PHI
21. 01/05/19 vs. SEA
     
 
30 140 4.67 21 0 W, 31-17
23 138 6.00 26 1 W, 24-17
15 134 8.93 60t 2 W, 28-14
28 157 5.61 29 0 W, 30-16
21 114 5.43 32t 2 W, 35-30
24 107 4.46 15 0 L, 10-7
23 159 6.91 42 1 W, 26-20
22 125 5.68 22 0 L, 34-31
24 104 4.33 10 0 W, 19-3
29 116 4.00 25 0 L, 35-31
26 147 5.65 25t 2 W, 40-10
33 150 4.55 14 2 W, 33-19
27 103 3.81 25 0 W, 6-0
16 127 7.94 26 0 L, 24-13
25 152 6.08 41 0 W, 26-24
24 106 4.42 21 1 W, 40-7
19 151 7.95 35 1 W, 27-20
23 122 5.30 23t 1 W, 22-19
26 121 4.65 16t 1 W, 31-23
28 113 4.04 20 0 W, 29-23
26 137 5.27 44 1 W, 24-22
           

Rushing has a .55 correlation depending on the site/time frame. Our win% under Dak is almost 70%. Our win % with Zeke over 100 yards is 80%. So again, you are just pointing out what I said. There is a minimal change when Zeke performs well. 

This is the 3rd time youve done it. 

How about argue this: We have a 0% win rate when Dak <6 AY/A and a 80% win rate when +6 AY/A. 

That is a very strong and direct correlation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, plan9misfit said:

I’m glad that you said it and not me. I vividly remember the stat lines and commentators (mainly Madden and a drunken Summerall) mentioning during games that Dallas (for a number of years) was nearly undefeated when Emmitt rushed for 100+ yards.

But hey, the running game doesn’t matter. No correlation to success, so we should just eliminate the position.

....said no player / coach / scout / executive / analyst / former player ever.

Remember when Emmitt sat out the first two games in 1993 and the team was 0-2, because Jerry thought any rb could run behind that Oline? Jerry coughed up the cash to Emmitt and the team won its next 7 games.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SweetFancyMoses said:

Remember when Emmitt sat out the first two games in 1993 and the team was 0-2, because Jerry thought any rb could run behind that Oline? Jerry coughed up the cash to Emmitt and the team won its next 7 games.  

I still dont think this forum understands correlation. 

It doent matter if you run 5 times or 50 times. 

Which means you can have a great RB and run the ball 50 times. It just doesnt dramatically change the win % based on 32 teams and 1000's of games worth of data. 

What matters is passing efficiency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

I still dont think this forum understands correlation. 

It doent matter if you run 5 times or 50 times. 

Which means you can have a great RB and run the ball 50 times. It just doesnt dramatically change the win % based on 32 teams and 1000's of games worth of data. 

What matters is passing efficiency. 

And what many people on this forum have said is that running the ball helps improve passing efficiency due to the decrease in QB pressure and fewer double teams on WRs. But hey, why factor that into a statistic when the running game doesn’t matter? You know, correlation and all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, plan9misfit said:

And what many people on this forum have said is that running the ball helps improve passing efficiency due to the decrease in QB pressure and fewer double teams on WRs. But hey, why factor that into a statistic when the running game doesn’t matter? You know, correlation and all. 

I challenge you to find multiple sources that back your "hunch".

Hint - they dont exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Also - I literally quoted multiple analyst saying it. 

And the trend with rules and play calling also show its true. 

The success of Walsh, the WCO, and the implementation of all the offenses in the league show it. 

Soooooo.............

You know that Walsh’s WCO was based around having a RB who can both run and catch, right? It’s not like Roger Craig didn’t factor into that offense. He was a significant part of it. But hey, the running game doesn’t matter. Look for yourself:

2nvyw8.png

Yep, those running stats clearly had no correlation to Montana’s success as a QB or the 49ers win totals. None whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

I challenge you to find multiple sources that back your "hunch".

Hint - they dont exist. 

I challenge you to find a “statistic” which includes that as part of its measure. Then, show me how it was weighted against the other factors.

Edited by plan9misfit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, plan9misfit said:

You know that Walsh’s WCO was based around having a RB who can both run and catch, right? It’s not like Roger Craig didn’t factor into that offense. He was a significant part of it. But hey, the running game doesn’t matter. Look for yourself:

2nvyw8.png

Yep, those running stats clearly had no correlation to Montana’s success as a QB or the 49ers win totals. None whatsoever.

Out of all the people on this website, you were one of the last that I would have to have detailed conversation about correlation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, plan9misfit said:

I challenge you to find a “statistic” which includes that as part of its measure. Then, show me how it was weighted against the other factors.

Are you joking? because I already provided like 5 sources that analyzed 1000's of games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Matts4313 said:

Out of all the people on this website, you were one of the last that I would have to have detailed conversation about correlation. 

Until I see the specific weights and factors used to determine the findings, I’m going to challenge them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Matts4313 said:

Are you joking? because I already provided like 5 sources that analyzed 1000's of games. 

Again, no mention of how the running game was measured against the other criteria. How was is weighted against the other areas of measure? Correlation is easily manipulated. You know this. If criteria is either under/over weighed or ignored, the findings will be misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, plan9misfit said:

Again, no mention of how the running game was measured against the other criteria. How was is weighted against the other areas of measure? Correlation is easily manipulated. You know this. If criteria is either under/over weighed or ignored, the findings will be misleading.

Multiple articles are based exclusively on the run game vs a ton of subset data. From multiple researchers. 

Again, are you effing with me? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Multiple articles are based exclusively on the run game vs a ton of subset data. From multiple researchers. 

Again, are you effing with me? 

Again, if the running game was meaningless, teams wouldn’t use it. The data you’re advocating is clearly inaccurate. Every team in every professional sport continuously evaluates metric data. They have entire teams dedicated to evaluating statistical data. It’s part of their daily routine. It helps shape game plans, free agency and draft strategies, personnel selections, etc. So, to be so bold as to say that the running game “doesn’t matter” is absolute hogwash. 

I guarantee you that if teams avoided the use of the running game in favor of exclusively focusing on QB completions, team win totals will plummet, thus proving that there is a correlation between the running game and wins. 

Like I said, I want to know what the criteria is that’s being evaluated and how it is weighted against the other factors. If something is missing or incorrect, the data will be misleading and incorrect.

Edited by plan9misfit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×