The Run Game doesnt matter

[DaBoys]

If ANY/A were the main reason we win games, how did we make it to the divisional with a QB that ranked 19th in that area? Good run game and defense? 

[plan9misfit]

7 minutes ago, DaBoys said:

It's almost as if no single aspect of the game is solely responsible for winning....

Hmmmmm. Crazy

Funny how that works. Hence, why I kept asking for the factors evaluated and asked for their weights. Statistical analyses are very easy to manipulate into what the analyst wants them to look like. Ignoring certain samples within data sets, cherry picking categories, over/under weighing the categories, ignoring/missing entire categories, etc. will influence the results. Basically, even though thousands of games were evaluated, if the method of evaluation was flawed from the onset, the data output is also flawed. 

[Matts4313]

On 6/14/2019 at 1:08 PM, DaBoys said:

If ANY/A were the main reason we win games, how did we make it to the divisional with a QB that ranked 19th in that area? Good run game and defense? 

 

On 6/14/2019 at 1:17 PM, plan9misfit said:

Funny how that works. Hence, why I kept asking for the factors evaluated and asked for their weights. Statistical analyses are very easy to manipulate into what the analyst wants them to look like. Ignoring certain samples within data sets, cherry picking categories, over/under weighing the categories, ignoring/missing entire categories, etc. will influence the results. Basically, even though thousands of games were evaluated, if the method of evaluation was flawed from the onset, the data output is also flawed. 

 

The Cowboys are:

22-1 when Dak is 8+ AY/A => 97% win rate. 

32-3 when Dak is 6+ AY/A => 91% win rate. 

1-12 when Dak is <6 AY/A =>  <10% win rate

 

You want to know why? BECAUSE PASSING EFFICIENCY IS HIGHLY CORRELATED TO WINNING.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Matts4313

[Matts4313]

On 6/14/2019 at 3:19 AM, The_Slamman said:

The bottom line is that better than 70% of the time time, the team that wins the rushing battle wins the game.  That’s not a very hard stat to understand.  And to take it a step further, it’s implicit that the team that runs better in the forth quarter almost always wins the game.  The teams that are losing despite having a lead after 3 quarters are losing because they can’t run the ball and control the clock.  70% is 70%.  

The data actually shows that high rushing has no correlation to winning in close games (7 points or less) but teams that are winning ALREADY (7 points or more) will rush more. 

So the data says the exact opposite of your conclusion. Research shows that passing efficiency will get you the lead, has the biggest correlation to successful drives and scoring which will lead to a score of 7+ points. At that point you will lean on the run game to waste time. 

On 6/14/2019 at 1:04 PM, plan9misfit said:

One problem with that 0.61 number: anyone who has taken a statistics or quantitative analysis course knows that statistical relevance begins at 0.8. Meaning, that figure would not be considered statistically relevant and thus would not be viewed as having a high correlation to winning, either.

ANY/A has a very high 70's correlation to winning. Over the last 25 years it was .78. Rushing was .54 using even the most generous stats. 

On 6/14/2019 at 1:07 PM, plan9misfit said:

It’s more like saying that all other methods of boxing are meaningless and have no correlation to winning than a knockout punch. So jabs, body shots, counter striking, defense, etc., would have no relevance.

Thats not what it is saying at all. Again, you are purposely misconstruing the word correlate. Meaningless =/= correlate. You can use whatever strategy you want in boxing, but a knock out punch will always trump them in terms of winning. Ask Mike Tyson. 

Body shot 100 times. Jab 250 times. Hook, uppercut, whatever you want as your strategy. But the highest correlation to winning a fight would be a knockout shot. 

[plan9misfit]

11 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

 

 

The Cowboys are:

22-1 when Dak is 8+ AY/A => 97% win rate. 

32-3 when Dak is 6+ AY/A => 91% win rate. 

1-12 when Dak is <6 AY/A =>  <10% win rate

 

You want to know why? BECAUSE PASSING EFFICIENCY IS HIGHLY CORRELATED TO WINNING.

And you’re still missing the point. I want to know if they factored the running game into the evaluation because it reduces pressure on the QB. Like I said, cheery picking and ignoring information will skew a statistic. Not sure why you keep ignoring that.

[Matts4313]

48 minutes ago, plan9misfit said:

And you’re still missing the point. I want to know if they factored the running game into the evaluation because it reduces pressure on the QB. Like I said, cheery picking and ignoring information will skew a statistic. Not sure why you keep ignoring that.

Dude. READ THE OP! I havent ignored you. I have given you multiple sources. And I have told you multiple times. READ THE OP!

Quote

After measuring this every way I could think if, it appears that the conventional wisdom that running is necessary for play-action passes to be effective should be questioned

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/rushing-success-and-play-action-passing

^^^^^^^^^^ Click that link

Quote

Second, there is very little to show that a team’s success in the running game influences QB play. And if running doesn’t help you pass, then running does very little to help you win. 

http://www.hawkblogger.com/2017/09/relationship-passing-rushing.html

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Click that link.

Quote

Conclusion

To review, here are our three main findings:

1) It is not the case that long drives disproportionately have greater rush/pass ratios.
2) Rush attempts that come in situations where running the ball is better than passing the ball in terms of extending drives are extremely rare.
3) There is not strong carryover between rushing success in short-yardage situations and rushing success in other situations.

Justifying an investment in the run game by saying it will help extend drives is misguided. If you want to get first downs, throw the ball (unless it's a short-yardage situation).

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/long-drives-and-running-game

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Click that link

[plan9misfit]

6 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Dude. READ THE OP! I havent ignored you. I have given you multiple sources. And I have told you multiple times. READ THE OP!

^^^^^^^^^^ Click that link

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Click that link.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Click that link

Dude, you realize that the article is based on first downs, NOT WINS, right? Did you read it? Again, if passing is all that mattered (which is wrong), and that passing the ball is the best way to achieve first downs and sustain drives (again, WRONG), then no one would ever run that ball.

So I ask again, how were the stats evaluated? Were weights applied, or did they solely (and inadequately) evaluate the number of plays and measure them to first downs/success WITHOUT factoring in how other areas impact those positions? The articles say they don’t, yet never state how they reached that determination beyond high school level comparisons and placing them on a scatterplot.

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, plan9misfit said:

Dude, you realize that the article is based on first downs, NOT WINS, right? Did you read it?

You are way too smart for this. 

Those are 3 different articles from different sources/authors. The 3 different articles are discussing 3 different points. One of the 3 is about first downs. 

[plan9misfit]

2 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

You are way too smart for this. 

Those are 3 different articles from different sources/authors. The 3 different articles are discussing 3 different points. One of the 3 is about first downs. 

Again, none of them address my question. Clearly, doing something like evaluating how different positions can influence the outcomes of success from other positions was never of interest to them. And why would it be? It would suggest that their “evaluations” are flawed, because they omitted significant parts of evaluation criteria. You know, like most of it.

It’s very easy to do nothing than look at the play itself without evaluating how the positions impact outcomes. Here’s a simple one:

If a defense stacks 10 men in the box to stop the run, thus leaving 3 WRs either in one on one matchups or completely uncovered, is the probability for a QB to complete a pass higher or lower than if his WRs are all double covered?

And, why would a team stack 10 men in the box to stop the run if the running game didn’t matter? Wouldn’t they just put 5-6 men in coverage instead? 

[quiller]

What I feal you can take from all this back and forth.   

Dallas with Dak as QB will win the game if Dak has a high Any/a and loose the game if he doesn’t.    Now how we get to that point is up to debate and probably unanswerable.   At first blush it is silly to say that running the ball effectively or even the threat of being able to run the ball effectively does not have a positive effect on a QBs any/a.   Still there is so much at play that you can not make any absolute type statements.    What is the D approach are they selling out to stop run.   Blitz.  Etc.  

Let me give you a game example. Rather extreme to make a point:

D gets a TD for team A.   D gets a 3- out team A returns punt TD.  Another 3-0 team a gets a 80. yard screen pass TD.  Team A is now winning in a blow out.   They mostly just run the ball amass a ton of yards QB doesn’t really have to do anything doesn’t make any errors game over QB has a great any/a.   Team has a ton of yards rushing.  

Stats say.   Oh look at all those yard and we win.  Dong dong running leads to a win.  Oh high any/a passing leads to a win.  

Reality the D and special teams won the game.  And the other stats were built by circumstance 

Edited June 19, 2019 by quiller

[Matts4313]

Posting this here as well:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ezekiel-elliott-is-not-worth-the-money-he-wants/

Quote

We know — and the Cowboys should, too — that rushing is not nearly as important to winning in the NFL as passing. But rushing is still a part of the game, and situational running is still critical. A back who excels in high-leverage spots can be quite valuable. It could be the case that Dallas believes it has an advantage in crucial moments with Zeke on the field that helps justify re-signing him.

--------------------------------------------------------

Situationally, Zeke is profoundly average, but some perspective here is probably needed. Situational running, while important, is relatively rare. Around 5 percent of Elliott’s carries came in the red zone in 2018. Fifteen percent came in situations when the Cowboys were trying to close out the game, and 14 percent came on short-yardage runs in the open field. The majority of Zeke’s carries — about 65 percent — occurred in other situations. The problem is that those other situations turn out to be awful times to run the football.

----------------------------------------------------------

It sounds strange, but commanding bad rushing volume is really the only aspect of Elliott’s game that is truly elite. The Cowboys could believe that they have a generational talent at the running back position, and because of this faith, they overuse him.

It’s that overuse that’s the problem. Extending Elliott is the manifestation of an objectively poor offensive strategy. It isn’t just a terrible idea because the valuable portion of Elliott’s production — the situational part — is easily replaced by nearly any back talented enough to make a Week 1 NFL roster. And an early extension isn’t just poor risk management because between 20 to 33 percent of high-volume running backs will incur a serious injury in a given year, though that is also certainly true.⁶

The primary reason an investment in an overpriced, risky asset is truly awful is because it can impact play calling in the worst possible way. In an attempt to justify the overspend at the position, a team may be encouraged to run more and pass less. It’s the worst kind of curse, and the Cowboys seem eager to cast the hex on themselves.

 

[Matts4313]

@HTTRG3Dynasty ^^^^^^^^^^^ Regrading the Zeke debate.

[Runaway Jim]

Someone has bumped this thread???!!!!

[dll2000]

If Analytics are correct than Zeke sitting should make little difference one way or other and there is nothing to worry about on that front. 

I think the best lies are mostly truth or all truth - just not telling whole story.

I think passing is more important and O line is more important for a lot of reasons they cite.

That being said I think Rbs matter.  I think they matter a lot.  To say they don't is false. They touch ball second most after QB.   I just think it is more a supply and demand thing.  The supply of decent to good Rbs is nearly always high while supply at other postions is more scarce.

So they are devalued by the market.  I wouldn't pay one top dollar with a salary cap. 

Why are there so many good ones?  I posit that at every level of football pre NFL, particularly pre college, the best athlete on team that can't throw and isn't tall or skinny gets put at RB.  It produces a lot of good RBs. 

Same reason DL are so much more athletic than OL on average.  Best big men get put on DL first at lower levels.  Makes good OL scarce and expensive.  There are DL out of league that are far better athletes than starting guards making millions.  

Also, modern run game is easy to learn.  It's mostly IZ, OZ and power. 

 

[plan9misfit]

The running game has no correlation to wins, huh? These stats certainly tell a different story.

Win Rate with Zeke: 70%

Win Rate without: 50%

Completion percentage is 5.7% higher with Zeke.

TD:INT with Zeke is 3:1

TD:INT without Zeke is 2:1

Quincy’s passer rating is 11.1 points HIGHER with Zeke. 

That literally tells you that a RB has a DIRECT influence on the outcome of games and how well a QB performs.

But, yeah...no correlation.

Edited July 26, 2019 by plan9misfit