tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post1358722567090503482..comments2023-11-05T04:16:44.937-05:00Comments on Advanced Football Analytics (formerly Advanced NFL Stats): Expect Even More Passing Yards, and Why It MattersUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-54355312667969006102012-11-01T11:04:58.264-04:002012-11-01T11:04:58.264-04:00The short pass to setup the long pass? That's ...The short pass to setup the long pass? That's retarded..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-75603419715270566662012-09-10T08:32:18.159-04:002012-09-10T08:32:18.159-04:00Please see every 49ers game last year. How did pas...Please see every 49ers game last year. How did passing work out for those teams when they failed to run it?<br /><br />Lots of yards...who cares and not enough points.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17088756961127046984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-53622952537497785492012-09-08T23:59:43.507-04:002012-09-08T23:59:43.507-04:00Eric Moore - Substitute "Max Hall" for T...Eric Moore - Substitute "Max Hall" for Tarvaris Jackson, then. I think you know where I was going. The idea that the Browns would win more games by increasing their pass/run ratio strains common sense in light of their QB situation.Brandon Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03533683928083230398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-68911009187593552662012-09-08T22:53:43.295-04:002012-09-08T22:53:43.295-04:00@ Anonymous above - The fact that the Giants kicke...@ Anonymous above - The fact that the Giants kicked the extra point with like 3 minutes to go in the game instead of going for two (FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!) shows that your assumption that football folks are aware of basic math is false. Like, the most basic math possible. Like, ever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-44324596667543892652012-09-08T19:59:22.663-04:002012-09-08T19:59:22.663-04:00Good discussion, as anonymous who said 'obvio...Good discussion, as anonymous who said 'obviously wrong', let me be very clear. the NFL is a 10 billion $/year business, and they are aware of Microsoft Excel. Winning the superbowl is extremely valuable, and if simply 'passing more' was effective, it would happen.<br /><br />For a real world example, look at Mike Martz, that guy would not have an RB on his final 53 if he could get away with it. His biggest criticism, was he would abandon the run too quickly. The last decade, he hasn't really been that successful, and his worst games are the ones with ~10 run attempts.<br /><br />Another real world example, the broncos last year. Running was very successful for them, and applying this analysis to them would have been very wrong.<br /><br />Obviously passing is important, and that is reflected in the current NFL. But look at completions vs runs (rather than add in all the incomplete passses) and they are much closer to even.<br /><br />My point is that the extrapolation of a statistical analysis is simply not valid. Hell, you could probably show that hail mary passes get TDs more often than the typical passing play, therefore all teams should just throw hail marys every play. Or fake field goals get a first down at a high rate, therefore all teams should fake a field goal on every play. It simply does not work like that.<br /><br />Question: what exactly is the "85% passing" based on? If passing is better than running, why not 100%? Does this maximize winning probability if you run a few million game scenarios?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-19957144263763886822012-09-08T17:17:36.345-04:002012-09-08T17:17:36.345-04:00There is one thing in favor of running that has be...There is one thing in favor of running that has been missed. On a per-play, per-game basis surely the passing % must increase.<br /><br />But coaches have to consider that a QB is a precious asset. They don't grow on trees and they are expensive. RBs are getting (relatively) cheaper all the time. Last I checked the QB rarely gets hit after handing it off to the RB. Throwing risks the career on every snap.<br /><br />QBs age even if you don't use them. But they surely age faster when they are hit. A coach has to weigh the value of the current game against the QB's net present value, or NPV.<br /><br />This implies that older, more marginal QBs who are easily replaced should be used more aggressively than younger and better QBs.<br /><br />As well the value of the remaining QBs on the roster need consideration. You can expose Jim Kelly to some hits when you've got a good backup like Frank Reich around.SportsGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02900787022759289513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-1014051965890857862012-09-08T16:45:59.992-04:002012-09-08T16:45:59.992-04:00The one issue now is that the value of an intercep...The one issue now is that the value of an interception may be increasing if scoring is becoming easier thus changing the int yardage multiplier in adjusted net yards per attempt. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-52058966482163341902012-09-08T13:10:45.148-04:002012-09-08T13:10:45.148-04:00At anonymous above:
Wrong. There are many reasons...At anonymous above:<br /><br />Wrong. There are many reasons that calling more pass plays than the norm does not occur. The number one reason being that the NFL mindset is that of an "old boys club" meaning if you do things differently you are wrong. Coaches are always timid to go against the grain because if they lose every question will be "Why didn't you play 'like you're supposed to'? Everyone 'knows' that's the best. You must want to lose". Look at Bill Belichik's 4th and 2 call against the Colts a few years back. If he had just punted the ball away and the colts had still come down and scored (which they were doing at will on that defense in the second half), no one would have said "terrible call to punt the ball there" because that's the expected play. Being expected doesn't make it right.<br /><br />On the other hand, how do you "know" the Browns wouldn't win more games if they called 85% pass plays? No one has ever done it before, no one has even come close. All we know is that it goes against the "common knowledge" that you "need" to run the ball a set amount to win. However what Brian's data shows is that over the past decade, throwing the ball has become more and more lucrative while running has remained constant. The game theoretic smart play then is to increase the pass:run ratio which is what this article is explaining. How people can not understand this is beyond me. <br /><br />Oh and all the people saying "well running yards are more consistent" are completely wrong. The majority of running backs will average only about 3 yards per run on 90% of their carries, and then break one for 20+ a game to get their average up to 4 ypc. That's not consistent nor is it good enough to compete with safe screen and short yardage throws which can be completed at well over 80% of the time. Plus it's way more common to "break one" for 15-20 yards when its a 1 on 1 match up on the outside then when its 7 vs 7+ in the box.<br /><br />Also, do people not understand what adjusted yards per attempts means? I see so many people in the comments talking about the increased turn over rate when throwing. Adjusted yards per attempts takes that into account...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-18252333642995036502012-09-07T23:04:58.848-04:002012-09-07T23:04:58.848-04:00great stuff, fascinating to read. I love this sit...great stuff, fascinating to read. I love this site. However, it's pretty obvious this extrapolation of simple stat analysis is wrong.<br /><br />why is it obvious? because it does not happen in reality. if cleveland could just call pass plays 85% of the time, so as to equal yards/run and yards/pass, they won't win any more games.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-16557033283128522132012-09-07T14:40:57.987-04:002012-09-07T14:40:57.987-04:00A bunch of points:
(1) If you don't run the b...A bunch of points:<br /><br />(1) If you don't run the ball it will deny the power of the Play Action Pass. <br /><br />(2) It will increase the % of 3 and outs b/c there will not be as many consistent manageable 3rd downs which runs more reliably set up. <br /><br />(3) Say what you wish, but a good running attack will slow down the pass rush... leading to less sacks.<br /><br />(4) The amount of passes per game have steadily increased due to many shorter passes. These teams are not using the west coast offense but they are using some hybrid version of it, depending on short reliable passing. I would love to see some stats of pass attempts less than 4 or 5 yards year to year. I would be very surprised if it didn't directly correlate with passing attempts per game.<br /><br />(5) If the defense knew you were going to pass 85% of the time (which seems ridiculous) they would more readily be in all out pass rushing mode which would lead to many more sacks & injured QBs. Teams would build their defense around the pass rush to counteract a league shift to all passing.<br /><br />(6) Of course be an upward trend in passing yards per attempt. That trend has a lot more to do with the rules the league has implemented that favor the offense and tell the defensive players to take their hands off the receivers, in turn emasculating the sport. The trend for more passing has increase due to league rules more than anything.<br /><br />(7) Defenses are going to adapt to any offensive game plan.<br />Running the ball will always be a large part of the game as long as the NFL doesn't to continue adding biased rules against defenses. I honestly can't think of one rule that has benefited defenses in the past 15 years... so this very well may happen.<br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17088756961127046984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-15074140259974917802012-09-07T14:28:37.015-04:002012-09-07T14:28:37.015-04:00A bunch of points:
(1) If you don't run the b...A bunch of points:<br /><br />(1) If you don't run the ball it will deny the power of the Play Action Pass. <br /><br />(2) It will increase the % of 3 and outs b/c there will not be as many consistent manageable 3rd downs which runs more reliably set up. <br /><br />(3) Say what you wish, but a good running attack will slow down the pass rush... leading to less sacks.<br /><br />(4) The amount of passes per game have steadily increased due to many shorter passes. These teams are not using the west coast offense but they are using some hybrid version of it, depending on short reliable passing. I would love to see some stats of pass attempts less than 4 or 5 yards year to year. I would be very surprised if it didn't directly correlate with passing attempts per game.<br /><br />(5) If the defense knew you were going to pass 85% of the time (which seems ridiculous) they would more readily be in all out pass rushing mode which would lead to many more sacks & injured QBs. Teams would build their defense around the pass rush to counteract a league shift to all passing.<br /><br />(6) Of course be an upward trend in passing yards per attempt. That trend has a lot more to do with the rules the league has implemented that favor the offense and tell the defensive players to take their hands off the receivers, in turn emasculating the sport. The trend for more passing has increase due to league rules more than anything.<br /><br />(7) Defenses are going to adapt to any offensive game plan.<br />Running the ball will always be a large part of the game as long as the NFL doesn't to continue adding biased rules against defenses. I honestly can't think of one rule that has benefited defenses in the past 15 years... so this very well may happen.<br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17088756961127046984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-39692986315024772802012-09-07T05:07:04.476-04:002012-09-07T05:07:04.476-04:00Although I certainly agree with the entire gist of...Although I certainly agree with the entire gist of the article, I think you failed to mention one point that helps running:<br /><br />You pointed out that the better offenses get the more important possession is rather than field position. But isn't a pass twice, maybe three times as likely to be a turnover than a running play is? That makes running more lucrative. This effect would be compounded if teams would just go for it more often on fourth down, as the more opportunities you have, the less variance you want.<br /><br />That combined with the fact that running is valuable even in the current environment as a constraint, in short yardage, the red zone, on 3rd down, and to burn clock and I don't believe 15/85 would be the true optimimum. Still, I agree we are not near it and it's going to take some riskier coaches to get a better estimate of what it is.Brendan Scolarihttp://yahoo.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-4871195235335144392012-09-07T00:16:44.270-04:002012-09-07T00:16:44.270-04:00Will we see the NFL prediction model this season?Will we see the NFL prediction model this season?SportsGuyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02900787022759289513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-87060321198150508072012-09-06T19:27:28.261-04:002012-09-06T19:27:28.261-04:00I'm going to posit that the equilibrium point ...I'm going to posit that the equilibrium point is around 60%, but your ratios are never going to approach that because of kneel-downs, burn the clock with the run in the late 4th Q, and the tendency of less explosive teams to run a draw on 3rd & 10+ for field position purposes. SF did this frequently, and they went 13-3 last year. Not all teams are built like the aforementioned Pats, Saints, & Pack. There are teams like the Jets, Ravens, and Steelers [and last year's Niners] who are successful (at winning) with defense, ST, and field position. There are others like CLE, JAX, MIN, & MIA, who don't have a QB who is ready to take on these responsibilities. Those 8 teams will run more than league "optimum", because that's not optimum for THEIR team.<br />Another problem with a 60+% passing ratio is the chance your All-Pro QB gets injured. See Cutler last year, Brady a few years ago, etc. Sure, most of those are random, but the more the QB passes, the more hits he potentially takes (legal & illegal). Most QB's don't EVER get touched on a run play.<br />These reasons are why, IMO, 60% is the equilibrium, and my guess is that you would get the numbers up 1-2% if you removed kneel-downs from your database, and the other 2% to get to 60% if you manually removed any runs by the winning team with less than 3 min. remaining in the 4th Q, and ESP. if the losing team has 1 or 0 time-outs remaining. There may also be the occasional play before the end of the 1st half where the offense runs a running play, then elects not to run another and the defense elects to not use a time out. On all the above plays mentioned, the goal is not to gain yards.<br />PS--Since your own research has shown that Success Rate is a better stat to measure running than just YPC, you might should have mentioned that in the article. As other commenters have mentioned, SR shows why many coaches choose to run in certain situations, when the pure YPP #'s show the reverse. Josephnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-24783879245097138262012-09-06T17:28:26.493-04:002012-09-06T17:28:26.493-04:00I understand game theory, and know where you'r...I understand game theory, and know where you're coming from, and agree that people should pass a lot more, but I think Adj Net YPA is the wrong metric to check, because of the aforementioned first down problem.<br /><br />Running, as we know, has lower variance in yardage than passing, because nobody can reliably complete more than 70% of their passes. So presumably there is some threshold of down-and-distance after which it becomes better WP and EP-wise to run, despite the lower expected yards, because the probability of first down is higher and therefore WP and EP is higher. <br /><br />So I think if you measure the relative WP and EP instead of the pure expected yards, you will end up with something that still says people should pass a lot more, but by less than expected yards would predict. And, not that this should influence it, people will probably find that a bit less counterintuitive. <br /><br />I also think WP is more useful earlier in each half than you give it credit for, especially as your database grows, since there is still some clock effect in the first and third quarters. Elliothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03330362428971504423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-72167030084897789862012-09-06T17:11:03.056-04:002012-09-06T17:11:03.056-04:00I understand your analysis, conclusions and the po...I understand your analysis, conclusions and the points raised in comments. I can't help feel that the two aspects not properly accounted for are alternate possessions and time remaining. The impact of a turnover on 3nd down seems to be marginally differently than an incomplete pass followed by a punt/return to the same yard-line. Is getting a 1st and 10 at mid-field via a fumble recovery really that different than receiving a punt at the 10 and returning it to the 50?<br /><br />Also the models based on per play efficiency don't take into account the difference in clock time. Incomplete passes don't only fail to gain yardage, they fail to take as much time off the clock. This can have a positive or a impact on winning probability. Sometimes the incremental time used is more important than the chance for yards.<br /><br />I think some time ago I posted a similar comment in a discussion of the value of time outs vs 5 yard penalties for delay of game.JMMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-55884245729835962572012-09-06T16:55:39.405-04:002012-09-06T16:55:39.405-04:00Brandon - actually, Tarvaris Jackson's AYPA la...Brandon - actually, Tarvaris Jackson's AYPA last year was 4.5, while the average yards per carry shown above is 4.3. The offense still might not qualify as explosive, but its an improvement.Eric Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01496717842529415018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-68356250707503753312012-09-06T14:36:08.286-04:002012-09-06T14:36:08.286-04:00It takes a good quarterback to exploit a higher pa...It takes a good quarterback to exploit a higher pass/run ratio. There's a reason that three of the highest ratios in 2011 belonged to New England, New Orleans, and Green Bay. Telling Tarvaris Jackson to pass more is not going to create a more explosive offense.Brandon Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03533683928083230398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-82154026284196646712012-09-05T22:45:54.694-04:002012-09-05T22:45:54.694-04:00Is the same strategy optimal for all teams? i.e. D...Is the same strategy optimal for all teams? i.e. Does a team with significantly worse ability benefit from using a strategy that increases variance?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-77300667700192315612012-09-05T22:21:05.871-04:002012-09-05T22:21:05.871-04:00Whats the correlation between pass% and winning%?Whats the correlation between pass% and winning%?willkokyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00734075318874740601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-81225671550828956162012-09-05T15:32:49.980-04:002012-09-05T15:32:49.980-04:00As a fan of a run-heavy team, there is no argument...As a fan of a run-heavy team, there is no argument here from me. It's plain to see. I'd prefer my team pursued a stronger passing game to take advantage of the disparity here.<br /><br />Game theory would seem to hold that it wouldn't be advantageous to go against the grain until we at least approach that equilibrium, but I wonder, is there room for broader variance in strategy even now? I can think of plenty of logical reasons why the run-heavy physicality approach could yield dividends with an already-noticeable shift in defensive personnel toward defending the pass, but I don't know if that holds up to scrutiny. <br /><br />That is, surely with the continued shift toward the pass and the shift in defensive personnel, the advantage of a balanced or run-heavy approach increases, albeit modestly, but my question is, could there possibly be room to benefit in 2012?<br /><br />Jacob Stevenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16635038007666752332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-21668684234779867342012-09-05T13:42:06.560-04:002012-09-05T13:42:06.560-04:00Thank you for showing Tony Sparano in the pic abov...Thank you for showing Tony Sparano in the pic above, since he's a prime example of someone who just. doesn't. get. it.<br /><br />As a Dolphins fan, I couldn't be happier to see him go run the Jets offense, after four years of his risk aversion dooming any chance of the Dolphins winning up to their potential. His low variance running game (other than the 2008 vintage Wildcat) following on Wannstedt's use of the same, has to be a prime reason that they've consistently underperformed their pythagorean expectation.<br /><br />Welcome to Fistpumps-for-Fieldgoals Jets fans. You'll miss Schottenheimer by week 6.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-16623263214172311062012-09-05T12:47:03.732-04:002012-09-05T12:47:03.732-04:00Interesting analysis though I believe rule changes...Interesting analysis though I believe rule changes are the primary reason the league is pass happy. As rule changes have made it easier to pass, the teams have adapted. Those adapting and adopting early and often have been more successful. Interesting tangent on this opening day is the disproportionate impact of a top-notch pass rush, ala the Giants. If teams will pass more, a devestating pass rush may be the best defense at the end of the day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-63125459810394758562012-09-05T10:58:59.770-04:002012-09-05T10:58:59.770-04:00it has been stated once in the comments but i woul...it has been stated once in the comments but i would also agree that there is hidden yardage in penalties. i bet if this were factored in, the trend up in yards per passing attempt would be even more drastic in the last several years. this won't add up on anyone's receiving or passing stat sheet but offensive coordinators are certainly aware the rules are slanted toward their favor in the pass game.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04493123424195804149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-39869076425517363742012-09-05T10:56:22.812-04:002012-09-05T10:56:22.812-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04493123424195804149noreply@blogger.com