tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15377771.post1069164194055636276..comments2024-03-13T03:27:50.582-04:00Comments on Smart Football: More on evaluating the run gameChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07204245083374821812noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15377771.post-24141730392256730352009-08-05T13:30:31.296-04:002009-08-05T13:30:31.296-04:00Still no discussion about success rate? It's ...Still no discussion about success rate? It's not the end all, be all only stat you need to see to judge a running back, but I think it really captures what you are looking at with first down only above, except with all 4 downs. It's also easy to read, understand, and compare.Dr Obvioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00966038406811006557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15377771.post-47025016247948869872009-08-05T13:13:07.097-04:002009-08-05T13:13:07.097-04:00Interesting point about 75-yard runs and the arith...Interesting point about 75-yard runs and the arithmetic mean. It just struck me that software packages like SAS have routines that identify outliers and influential points in data sets. It might be that the way to evaluate running games (and/or running backs) is not by trying to find a single statistic, but by an index that takes into consideration mean, standard deviation (smaller SD = more consistent production, <i>ceteris parabus</i>), and analysis of outliers. More positive outliers might be thought a good thing, but in any case it's worth knowing just <i>how</i> that offense got to a 5.0-yard average.Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04780425923108876647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15377771.post-15285225038065791102009-08-04T13:33:38.532-04:002009-08-04T13:33:38.532-04:00I realized and error in my original post that does...I realized and error in my original post that does not affect the point in anyway.<br /><br />But the average of 3 ypc and 6 ypc is of course 4.5 not 5.Bradnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15377771.post-3777551985701727402009-08-03T12:51:38.629-04:002009-08-03T12:51:38.629-04:00Consistency is key. The most important quality fo...Consistency is key. The most important quality for an offense is the ability to move the chains. An offense that gains five yards every play will score more points per drive and win more games than an offense that averages 10 yards per play. While a 35 yard run is wonderful, follow it with runs of 1, 2, and 2 and you've averaged 10 yards a carry and punted.<br /><br />After the Colts' Edgerrin James came back from his knee surgery, he lacked explosiveness. He appeared less athletic than the best RBs in the NFL and no better than the mediocre. Hindered by a very poor run blocking offensive line, he shouldn't have been very effective.<br /><br />But Indy's scheme (their unique stretch with play action threat kept the secondary back) gave James a chance to do something he did better than anyone in the game -- attack a seam with his pads really low. Without secondary support, defensive fronts were forced to race laterally to the outside. The Colt O-line merely maintained contact. Edge would find a little crease, cut hard and drive his pads through about knee high between defenders. Running hard and locked up with a blocker, defenders couldn't stop him from pushing forward for 2-3 yards after contact. He consistently put the Colts in makeable 3d down situations. And of course, no one is more consistent picking up first downs than Peyton.<br /><br />Break down film of those Colt teams and the running game looks pedestrian or worse. The blocking isn't good and James makes very few long runs. Yet, all they managed to do was provide the opportunity for the offense to keep moving the sticks and putting up points. Clearly they benefited from the defenses focusing to stop the pass. Still, their positive impact was far greater than any statistical measure is likely to capture.<br /><br />stan<br /><br />I think that something like FO's success rate with a focus on consistency will likely provide the best measure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15377771.post-11824247501357898162009-08-03T11:36:46.834-04:002009-08-03T11:36:46.834-04:00One of my favorite qoutes by a running back:
"...One of my favorite qoutes by a running back:<br />"If you need one yard, I'll get you three. If you need five yards, I'll get you three."<br />-Leroy HoardJaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15377771.post-42926517855538625832009-08-02T20:56:21.309-04:002009-08-02T20:56:21.309-04:00Excellent post, as always.
Just an observation fr...Excellent post, as always.<br /><br />Just an observation from a statistician's perspective: One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is the degree of accuracy with which we can actually estimate a team's distribution of run lengths, based on the finite number of run plays in a season (and specifically the fairly small number of long runs).<br /><br />When we talk about the distribution of a team's or a player's runs, what we're really doing is (1) using the distribution of runs that we observe for a team for the season to estimate the team's "true" run distribution, and then (2) using that estimate of the "true" run distribution to somehow quantify how good the team's run game is.<br /><br />Most of the discussion so far has been about (2). But let's not forget about (1). And what I mean by that is, let's remember that when we're looking at things that don't happen very often, there's a ton of variability in the data we observe, and so any statements we try to make about those things aren't as precise as we probably think they are.<br /><br />Specifically, this applies to the issue of long runs. If a certain running back has 10 carries of 15+ yards in a season, then we shouldn't be the least bit surprised to see that same back have, say 14 or 7 carries of 15+ yards the following season, even under exactly the same circumstances, because that's well within the range of variability we'd tend to see, statistically speaking (assuming a Poisson distribution, or a binomial distribution with small <i>p</i>, which is really the same thing). So while it's reasonable to say that we <i>think</i> that a back with 10 long runs in a season has better big-play ability than a back with only 7, we certainly can't make that statement with any sort of confidence that it's actually true. To put it a different way, while it's certainly true that the ability to break long runs is a repeatable skill (unlike, say, a team's ability to recover fumbles), it's unfortunately a repeatable skill about which we have a small amount of data for each team in a given season, which means it's difficult to say for sure how good teams, much less players, are at that skill.<br /><br />So when we're designing a metric to evaluate the run game, I think it's necessary that it weights success on short runs somewhat more heavily than breaking the occasional long run, not because the former skill is more valuable, but because the latter skill is much more difficult to accurately estimate.Dougnoreply@blogger.com