Jump to content
Matts4313

Run Game is largely irrelevant

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Danger said:

However the discrepancy Matts wants to make of rushing not correlating with winning, is silly.

Your entire argument is invalidated because I never said passer rating. Passer rating is flawed inherently. I used ANY/A for a reason. Or AY/A, because thats more available. 

 

But for the record, Danger is awesome for at least trying to use facts to prove me dumb. I respect that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A stat that has a very LOW correlation to win percentage: Yards/Rush

 

oTmzfkj.png

 

 

Share this post


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

Isnt that the point? That there is literally only one subset of data that correlates strongly over 1000's of data points?

If the point was simply proving passing the ball was the most important factor, then yes.  But you are concluding that because that's true, running the ball must be unimportant.  And at that point, why stop at the running game?  Your logic would dictate that literally every other part of an NFL game that isn't ANY/A related is irrelevant.  

Quote

And if your argument is that you dont agree with the word irrelevant, than give me a better word for something that hast an extremely low correlation with winning.

I'm not sure why it needs a word.  It is just a part of the game.  

 

Edited by iknowcool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

Your logic would dictate that literally every other part of an NFL game that isn't ANY/A related is irrelevant.  

Thats pretty much exactly my point. And outside of anecdotal evidence it wont be disproved. Its fact. 

Share this post


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

Thats pretty much exactly my point. And outside of anecdotal evidence it wont be disproved. Its fact. 

1. That is horrible logic.  A not being as important as B doesn't make A irrelevant.  

A programming class is more important to a CS major than a math class is.  Does that make learning math irrelevant?

2. The numbers might be factual, but the opinion you formed from it isn't.

Edited by iknowcool

Share this post


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

1. That is horrible logic.  A not being as important as B doesn't make A irrelevant.  

A programming class is more important to a CS major than a math class is.  Does that make learning math irrelevant?

2. The numbers might be factual, but the opinion you formed from it isn't.

Then come up with the word. 

Whats the word for a stat that had very little correlation to the achieved outcome?

You want to poop on my outcome. Then come out with a better one. Whats your outcome, and whats your proof that it matters? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One website said .57 the other .55. neither of those are strongly correlated. 

Find something that says I am lying? That I am wrong. If the evidence exist that running = wins, one of you will find it. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Then come up with the word. 

Whats the word for a stat that had very little correlation to the achieved outcome?

You are the one making the argument, not me.  I'm not sure why I need to come up with a word to fit your argument.  I just know the running game is definitely not irrelevant or unimportant.

Share this post


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

One website said .57 the other .55. neither of those are strongly correlated. 

Find something that says I am lying? That I am wrong. If the evidence exist that running = wins, one of you will find it. Right?

Just because something doesn't directly impact something doesn't mean it doesn't impact it.

Running the ball is a factor (one of the biggest ones) in a game full of hundreds of different factors.  Obviously there isn't a direct correlation, because there is more to the game than just running the ball and being good at that doesn't guarantee you are good at blocking, or pass rushing, or pass defense.  Just like having a good pass rush doesn't mean you will have a good offense.  Or having a good pass defense doesn't mean you will also be able to pass the ball efficiently on offense to make the most out of it.  Just because it isn't the most important doesn't mean it isn't important, or that its irrelevant, or that it doesn't impact the game.

You keep going back to the whole side of trying to prove to everyone that running the ball well doesn't guarantee success, which nobody is saying.  We all know passing the ball is the most important part of football.  The issue is you are taking that fact and then illogically concluding that must mean everything else doesn't matter.  It just doesn't make a lot of sense.  

 

Edited by iknowcool

Share this post


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

Lets use the NBA as an example and how its evolved.  Nowadays, shooting the three is vital.  If you lack perimeter shooters (especially coming off the bench), in all likelihood, you are going to struggle in the playoffs assuming you make it.  So being able to shoot the three and defend the three are extremely important and would be the NBA counterpart to the ANY/A argument (I'm a casual NBA fan so I don't know the #s behind this, but this is just to use as an example anyway).  However, just because the three ball is king doesn't mean a mid-range jumper isn't important anymore.  It doesn't mean post play is irrelevant.  It doesn't mean being able to excel in transition isn't going to help you throughout a game or a series.

Running the ball is the same way.  Hell you could say its just like how post play is in the NBA.  It isn't the most important thing.  And if it is the best thing your team is good at while being absent solid three point shooting, maybe you aren't going to be winning the finals.  But its still relevant and important.  You can't just not be able to put in work in the post, and you can't just not run the ball.  They, like a bunch of other factors that go into a game, mean a lot.  

You hit the nail on the head with this point here. I hate people who claim that you need to devote all your offensive possessions to 3 pointers, lay ups and free throws because “the mid range jump shot is the most inefficient type of scoring”.  You have to be able to shoot the mid range shot to keep the defense honest.  You’re not gonna be able to win every single game off of just shooting the 3

Houston is a good example of this.  They take this philosophy to an extreme, and while they were an injury away from a championship last season, they couldn’t beat the Warriors without their best player this season once their shots stopped falling

Share this post


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

 

Find something to prove I am wrong about said topic. 

The thread topic in of itself was enough to make me not read any of what you wrote. Yeah there are great running teams that don't make the playoffs and there are not many great passing teams that miss out on the playoffs. That's undeniable. But to call running the football largely irrelevant is ridiculous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think being able to run the ball well is like the equivalent to having a good bullpen in baseball - it will help you maintain leads and win close games.

Is it the most important thing in the game? Of course not.

I think saying it's irrelevant is hyperbole. It's certainly not irrelevant if you have a 3rd & less than 2 that you need to convert. It's not irrelevant when you have the ball a couple yards from the goal line. It's not irrelevant when you need to run out the clock. It's not irrelevant if you want to dominate the TOP and keep an opposing offense off the field.

If you want to argue that teams shouldn't be taking RB's top 5 (Like the Giants) or give them huge money (Like the Rams) that is one thing and I'd probably agree with you. As a Chargers fan I think Gordan probably needs to be the cap casualty in order to resign guys like Bosa/King/Henry.

But with that being said, teams shouldn't just start neglecting having a good run game just because the passing game is more important. 

 

Edited by Bolts223

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have said, no one is arguing about whether passing or rushing is more important in today's game. It's obviously passing.

But as an example, comparing efficiency in the passing game to efficiency in the rushing game - and their respective correlation to whether they're a playoff team - does not necessarily equal a like-for-like comparison. It's not always a good idea to compare pass efficiency to run efficiency, or bulk passing to bulk running, and draw conclusions from that.

Think about it situationally.

1) A team that builds a lead will run more, so their opponent will more likely play heavy personnel to stop the run. That makes it more likely for the winning team to have their rushing YPC decrease even though their rushing YPG increases. At the same time, when they do pass it, they'll be doing it against a defense that is designed to stop the run, and that will improve their passing YPA even as it limits their passing YPG (because they're not passing it as much).

2) Meanwhile, a team that builds the lead will try to stop the other team from passing, so they will play more dime and quarter personnel. That makes it more likely for the losing team to have their passing YPA decrease even as their passing YPG increases. At the same time, when they do rush it, they'll be doing it against a defense designed to stop the pass, and that will improve their rushing YPC even as it limits their rushing YPG (because they're not rushing as much).

Because of the above, playoff teams are more likely to have a higher pass efficiency differential than a run efficiency differential, but are less likely to have a higher cumulative passing yards differential than a rushing yards differential. See http://pfref.com/tiny/kJhg5 According to that link, 71% of playoff teams had a positive rushing yards differential, while only 63% had a positive passing yards differential.

Of course this is a chicken-and-egg scenario to some extent, because you don't know how that winning team built its lead. I'd be interested in breaking down the data to look at how playoff teams did specifically in the first half in run and pass efficiency, as well as run and pass bulk yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

Think about it situationally.

1) A team that builds a lead will run more, so their opponent will more likely play heavy personnel to stop the run. That makes it more likely for the winning team to have their rushing YPC decrease even though their rushing YPG increases.

A team is up by 20 points, their QB does the kneel-down 3 times in a row to run out the clock and the opposing defensive coordinator is like "YES we held their QB to negative 12 yards rushing. Great job guys."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/11/2019 at 11:54 AM, EL Guapo said:

The Pats lost to the Broncos in the playoffs because they couldn't run the ball and then made sure they can do it. I think the same kind of happened with the Saints. I look at those two teams and see how important running the ball can be.

We lost that game because we were one more injury away from being forced to put the waterboy on the offensive line or the janitor at RB.

Edited by Elky

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



×