Statistics

[SkippyX]

The Patriots have a full time analyst in Ernie Adams. (hes been there forever)

• He came up with the 3 wides in goal line pick play as a practice play the week before the Super Bowl vs Seattle.

 

They do things like run the same exact formation right at KC 3 times in a row when they know their tendencies and see its going to work.

• Belichick's teams almost never have the best athletes. They are smarter and better prepared in almost every case.

 

Its not always a success. The Patriots used also used analytics to pick up Gilislee  (he had great per play stats)

• It did not work out at all but it was a very low cost move.

Edited August 2, 2019 by SkippyX

[Xenos]

If you have a subscription to the Athletic, here is a great article by Ted Nguyen about analytics with regards to the running game. I can't post the whole thing because it's so huge but I'll "try" to get some of the salient points. Though you will get the bigger picture from the entire article.

https://theathletic.com/980870/2019/07/26/teams-dont-have-to-establish-the-run-to-win-games-and-the-analytics-proves-it-but-the-run-isnt-dead-either/

 

Quote

Have you ever watched in frustration as your favorite team inexplicably runs the ball up the middle with little or no success? Do you find yourself thinking, What are they doing? Why don’t they throw the ball more? Am I crazy?

You’re not crazy. The analytics backs up your belief that this type of play calling is illogical.

In the wild-card round last season, for example, the Seattle Seahawks’ offense sputtered as they were eliminated by the Dallas Cowboys 24-22. In reviewing the film, what was most frustrating to watch was Seahawks offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer’s blind commitment to running the ball when his team was clearly outmatched up front. The Seahawks’ running backs averaged 2.8 yards per carry while their MVP-caliber quarterback, Russell Wilson, averaged 8.6 yards per pass in the same game.

After the game, coaches didn’t express any regret in sticking with the ground game. Some coaches just can’t help themselves — they grasp on to their ingrained belief that “establishing the run” equates to victory, even though analytics has proved otherwise.

Traditionalists will tell you that the run game is vital to pounding an opponent into submission and that running the ball will lead to wins. But there’s no disputing that the running game matters less in today’s game. The game rules have been changed to make passing easier and more efficient and the CBA rules limit contact in practice, which makes it a lot more difficult for offenses to refine a physical run game.

A yearly downward trend in rushing attempts continued in 2018. Teams only ran the ball 25.9 times per game, which is the lowest average in league history.

The importance of the run game has undoubtedly been diminished, but to what extent? Will the trend continue? What is the run game’s role in today’s NFL? How does it affect strategy and roster construction? How should teams value running backs?

To get the answers to these questions, I collected the research of several top football analytics experts to see what the numbers say and talked to several former and current NFL players and coaches to get their side of the argument.

Quote

For teams that are rebuilding, it just doesn’t make sense to draft a running back early. Those teams usually don’t have the offensive line to maximize a running back’s impact and they likely won’t play with a lead often enough to run the ball with frequency.

However, though the analytics community might advise against it, I don’t think it’s a bad move for a contending team with a strong passing game or elite defense to draft a running back early. Running backs have shown they can make an easier transition from college to the pros relative to other positions, and when they’re on a rookie contract, they don’t cost much.

With all that said, here are the recommendations from the analytics community:

1. Don’t invest heavily in your run game because it doesn’t correlate with winning

2. Use more play action because it’s more effective than drop-back passing and it has proved to work without having to “establish the run”

3. Don’t run the ball into eight-man boxes

4. Test the limits of passing, don’t force the run “unnecessarily”

5. Use the pass to set up the run (run when defenses start to adjust to pass)

6. Deception in all its forms is the most important element in offense

7. The run game is valuable in short-yardage situations, in the red zone and for running out the clock.

But what about the other side of the argument?

 

Quote

The case for the run game from NFL coaches and players

Though it might be hard to define and quantify, the run game is still important, even if the analytics we’ve reviewed challenges traditional views on its value. Though some coaches are simply rigid and unwilling to change their long-held beliefs, some of the most innovative and thoughtful offensive coaches in the league, such as the Rams’ Sean McVay, also build around the run game.

In this section, I’m not attempting to make a case to run the ball more or less; I’m simply trying to clearly define the value of the run game. I talked to several current and ex-coaches and players about the subject and asked them to respond to the arguments that the analytics presents. Some coaches/players asked not to be named, but most of their answers are consistent with each other’s.

Less risk of a negative play

Passing is becoming more efficient but the inherent risk of passing the ball still has to be considered. When passing the ball, there is a greater chance of a negative play than with a run play. A negative play could be a turnover or sack. On a pass play, there is the chance of an interception or fumble. The quarterback could get stripped or an offensive player could fumble the ball after a catch. On a run play, the only significant risk of a turnover is a fumble by the running back.

 

Quote

Disarm the pass rush

An offensive line coach told me he might get kicked out of the fraternity for telling me that teams don’t need to run the ball to win, but they need to run the ball to pass. Obviously, not every coach or player would agree with that statement, but every coach and player that I talked to believes that running the ball helps pass protection because it forces pass-rushers to play the run and maintain their gap responsibilities rather than just recklessly fly upfield to rush the passer.

 

Quote

Flawed statistics, unquantifiable effects and game theory

A coach from an analytics-driven team told me that some of the statistics used to prove the passing game’s superiority over the run game could be flawed or don’t tell the whole story because they rely on averages that could be swayed by big plays. He believes that it is better to look at median statistics when looking at the run game. The idea here is that 1) though the run game produces fewer big plays, it produces more consistent yardage; and 2) passing plays have a high variance (explosive plays, incompletes, turnovers, negative plays) that isn’t reflected by averages. There has been some discussion of using median and mode statistics to look at the run game but there haven’t been any thorough studies yet that I could find.

“The biggest mismatch on the field is defensive linemen against offensive linemen,” said 49ers run game coordinator Mike McDaniel. “Defensive linemen are supreme athletes and it’s a hard job to block people. Anything that gets defensive linemen to think about more than sacking the quarterback is a win.”

 

Quote

Count McDaniel as skeptical of the analytics: “A lot of stats are not quantifiable in terms of the pass game in regards to the run.” McDaniel and several other coaches explained that a strong run game affects the type of personnel on the field and the structure of the defense. For example, to stop the run, defenses have to keep run-stuffing defensive linemen in the game who aren’t as skilled at rushing the passer, or they have to keep bigger linebackers in the game who aren’t as skilled at coverage.

“A lot of defenses could take away explosive pass games if they were able to play two-high, two-man all day. The reason they can’t: You have run fits that are a hat short in the run game,” said McDaniel. “You have to earn single safety in this league. Single safety opens up some passing holes with five eligibles and three deep. You have to earn that, and to earn that, you have to draw another guy into the box because they’re afraid you’re gonna run it.”

 

Quote

“It’s not about just maximizing expected value for any individual play, it’s setting up aggregate expected value/return,” said Chris Brown, the editor of Smart Football. “So a run play might be micro inefficient but macro efficient because of what else it sets up/protects.”

Additionally, offenses only go into a game with a certain number of plays in the game plan. Coordinators can safely call the same run concept over and over again and still safely gain yards, but if they call the same pass concept over and over again and defenders anticipate the concept coming, there is a risk that they’ll jump the pass and intercept it.

On every pass attempt, quarterbacks are computing massive amounts of information in a short period of time while they are getting harassed by pass-rushers. Even with elite QBs, it can be beneficial to give them mental breaks and allow them to hand the ball off once in a while.

 

Quote

Final thoughts

After looking at all the research and talking with experts in the field, it seems clear the hard-line philosophy of the importance of establishing the run is outdated and disproven. But there is still value in being able to run the ball. It’s a tricky balance, but in building a team, general managers and coaches have to put more emphasis on investing in a strong passing game, but at the same time, they can’t lose sight of creating an efficient run game.

In 2018, of the top 10 teams in offensive DVOA (Football Outsiders’ measurement for a team’s efficiency by comparing success on every single play with a league average based on situation and opponent), seven were in the top 10 in rushing success rate. Eight of 10 had winning records and made the playoffs. So while there isn’t a correlation with traditional rushing success stats, there are correlations with running, winning and efficient offensive production.

This research is valuable for starting important conversations, but some analytics experts have reached hard conclusions that are too black and white for an extremely complex game. There is still value in the run game that hasn’t been properly explained by numbers. The subject should be researched further, but it seems experts on both sides of the argument are in a constant shouting match with each other in which nobody ever wins. Analytics experts, coaches, players, analysts and even fans could all benefit from listening to each other and learning from each other in this conversation to advance the game.

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Xenos

[minutemancl]

19 hours ago, Kiwibrown said:

They rely on analytics in new England.

Every team does. You'd be waaaaay behind if you didn't. The challenge is which analytics to use and how much weight to put into them. From everything I've read, it is still very much in a fledgling stage in the NFL. There are no tried and true metrics like in baseball, at least not yet. Every team does things differently. 

[Forge]

@Xenos just for future reference, we can't post entire articles in here anyway. Snips and then a link

 

[Xenos]

4 hours ago, Forge said:

@Xenos just for future reference, we can't post entire articles in here anyway. Snips and then a link

 

Thanks Forge. Question: what counts as snips? I felt like I posted only the key parts and not the entire article. Maybe at most a third. And is it only for paid articles?

Edited August 3, 2019 by Xenos

[Bonanza23]

Stats smats 

[Bearerofnews]

Stats validate what your eyes see. If your eyes see something not supported by stats, it can all be construed as objective viewing. I think using stats as SNC's (Statistical narrative characteristics) is more accurate when linking layers of stats. How WRs advanced metrics impact a qb's standard metrics or an oline's advanced metrics and how they impact a RB's metrics and vice versa. I think you need to be able to drill beyond the 1st layer of basic stats to get the whole picture. 

Eyes can lie to. Sometimes plays are designed to give certain spots the advantage or leverage that might look impressive with the eye. But its all situational that can be applied to multiple different levels of quality players.

Am i more impressed with a QB who rolls out, wide open foot platform space, throws a 60 yd bomb to a WR open by 5 yds for a td vs a WR who in a messy pocket, with immediate pressure, with no real foot platform space, throws a 18 yd pass in tight coverage in a small window that the WR drops.  Stats say so, eyes even might say so. So sometimes you just need to apply intelligent perspective to both aspects. Eye test and the stats. 

Edited August 4, 2019 by Bearerofnews

[Shanedorf]

On 8/2/2019 at 7:33 PM, Bonanza23 said:

Stats smats 

from Ben Fennell twitter

"Majority of analytics I come across [outside of NFL entities] are manufactured through 'results based data' - but when I talk to coaches, they talk about
'process based data'  The play RESULT does not explain / analyze the PROCESS... Now, who has access to right information/data ?" 

[GSUeagles14]

theres too many variables in football to completely buy into advanced analytic type stuff but its certainly useful in spots. I remember @ramssuperbowl99 swearing up and down that football would be just like baseball in regards to advance analytics and obviously thats just not in the cards.  Guys are too dependent on their teammates to be able to grade like that, gotta be a mix of stats and what you see.

[ramssuperbowl99]

On 8/2/2019 at 9:36 AM, ET80 said:

The Houston Astros use analytics in baseball, from scouting to development to in game decisions. The entire franchise is built on analytics...and they're the odds on favorite to win the WS this year, which would be their 2nd in three years. They have a lineup that is young, cheap and primed to win now, and a farm system that is overflowing with potential stars - stars that can develop here or used as trade assets to bring in key "win now" type players. 

From 2011 - 2013, the Astros averaged 100+ losses a season. Now, they're the best team in baseball with a model that's primed to keep them at the top for a very long time.

Analytics can transform a team if done right. 

They did the thing again

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-astros-may-have-salvaged-another-pitchers-career/

[ET80]

1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

They did the thing again

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-astros-may-have-salvaged-another-pitchers-career/

One of my friends texted me this - don't have the original link, but here's another interesting take on how the Astros are crunching the data in unique ways:

Could their secret weapon be a pitcher with a 6.07 ERA? Aaron Sanchez submitted 16 strikeouts and no walks in two starts before getting traded from the Toronto Blue Jays. When facing opponents the first time through the batting order, he has delivered a 2.12 ERA and 47 strikeouts in 46.2 innings. Just as they did with Lance McCullers in the 2017 ALCS, the Astros could let Sanchez lean on his curveball in shorter stints.

[ramssuperbowl99]

3 minutes ago, ET80 said:

One of my friends texted me this - don't have the original link, but here's another interesting take on how the Astros are crunching the data in unique ways:

Could their secret weapon be a pitcher with a 6.07 ERA? Aaron Sanchez submitted 16 strikeouts and no walks in two starts before getting traded from the Toronto Blue Jays. When facing opponents the first time through the batting order, he has delivered a 2.12 ERA and 47 strikeouts in 46.2 innings. Just as they did with Lance McCullers in the 2017 ALCS, the Astros could let Sanchez lean on his curveball in shorter stints.

That's a reasonable take as well honestly. The playoff non-starter but bullpen-ace dude is worth it's weight in gold. Either way it's CB-FV high armslot tunneling which is pretty much all the rage in baseball today.

But stats are for nerds.

[Uncle Buck]

On 7/26/2019 at 6:24 PM, Elky said:

 

Bud Grant used to say the same thing.  "Statistics are for losers.  What was the score?"  

As far as I'm concerned, statistics can tell us some things, but they are so often twisted and/or cherrypicked in our discussions that I don't put a ton of stock in them.  Call me old school if you want to, but I put a LOT more faith in the eye test than I do in a stat sheet.

[SkippyX]

Nick Foles is a great example of myopic people cherry-picking stat lines.

• What he did on the 2015 Rams with mediocre to bad teammates while facing 8 playoff teams in 11 starts on a team that was moving to LA did not define him.
  • Keenum mops up at 3-2 against the soft part of the schedule and you get the classic Slappy Fisher firing a future Super Bowl MVP on Hard Knocks

 

• What he did in 2014 to go 6-2 in Philly was close to amazing, but people only focused on the 13-10 TD/INT compared to 27-2 the year before.
  • The o-line was horrid for the first 5  weeks of that year so Foles figured out at halftime of week 1 (after 3 fumbles) that he had to run for his life
    • Shady McCoy was averaging 2.94 a carry after 5 weeks to highlight how bad the line was early.
    • Foles went from 3 fumbles in 2 quarters to 1 fumble over the next 28 quarters. That is an amazing adjustment.
      • Hot take artists in Philly described that as 'Foles running scared'
      • When Russell Wilson does the same thing behind a bad line its called greatness.
  • He had 2 picks in the Giants game that finished 27-0 Eagles (bad on the stat line but zero impact on that game)
  • His game vs DC that year was the stuff of legends. You saw a Super Bowl winning QB that day.
  • Sure he was absolutely awful in SF, but that is one game out of 7 1/2.

 

Chip Kelly took a look at Foles 2014 and sent him AND a 2nd rounder to St Louis for Bradford.

• Foles has won 4 playoff games and was the Super Bowl MVP.
• Kelly was fired twice in 13 months.

[DigInBoys]

On 7/27/2019 at 4:21 AM, TheFinisher said:

The issue with analytics in football is you have to treat every snap as an event, and statistics depend on outcomes being a repeatable, reliable measurement.  The problem is no two snaps are going to result in comparable outcomes.  There's too much variability for all 22 players on the field in any given snap, and the margins on how they effect a given play are so narrow (literally a game of inches, good luck accounting for that) you wind up with meaningless results.  But that won't stop services like PFF and Football Outsiders duping customers into thinking they're providing actual analysis.

 

And these are just some of the pure measurement problems with analytics in football.  There's an entirely other can of worms when you get into assumption of what a successful snap looks like for any given player.  The guys grading snaps for services like PFF have no idea how players are being coached and what their jobs actually are on any given snap.  They can't determine what a win/loss is for a play without knowing the play call and what that player is tasked with doing on that play, only the coaches and players of the team know that.

 

Good stuff.