Why rushing yards are worth more than passing yards (1 Viewer)

[stbugs]

Maybe Sacks aren't as a big a deal as I was thinking. I would be interested in Sacks for Q1 to Q3 versus Sacks in Q4. Heck, everyone who plays team defenses knows how much they love ends of games where your team is up a lot. I had Seattle for a good amount last year (or 2006) and I remember games against some bad teams with a big lead and just watching sacks add up (they had a good pass rush). I also saw a few INTs and even an INT for a TD in the last few minutes of games.

Most of the things on the "sins" list tie together. As far as why sacks are important, it is because they make an offense lose twice in one play: lost down and lost yardage. Those are drive killers, and which help your own TOP & Field position. If a team is loading up on sacks early, it can help them get a lead. If they get them late late, it means they aren't letting an opponent catch up, either way, it helps wins games.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was not saying sacks weren't important, but that the overall game stats of Team A having more sacks that Team B isn't a great stat IMHO. Break out the sacks to early sacks and 4th Quarter sacks. I think early sacks are a lot more meaningful predictor of winning and that the team with more sacks in the 4th Quarter is generally the team with the lead, so it isn't meaningful.Just to restate what I was trying to say above, I think early sacks contribute to winning whereas 4th Quarter sacks are more of a result of winning.

 

[H.K.]

Maybe Sacks aren't as a big a deal as I was thinking. I would be interested in Sacks for Q1 to Q3 versus Sacks in Q4. Heck, everyone who plays team defenses knows how much they love ends of games where your team is up a lot. I had Seattle for a good amount last year (or 2006) and I remember games against some bad teams with a big lead and just watching sacks add up (they had a good pass rush). I also saw a few INTs and even an INT for a TD in the last few minutes of games.

Most of the things on the "sins" list tie together. As far as why sacks are important, it is because they make an offense lose twice in one play: lost down and lost yardage. Those are drive killers, and which help your own TOP & Field position. If a team is loading up on sacks early, it can help them get a lead. If they get them late late, it means they aren't letting an opponent catch up, either way, it helps wins games.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was not saying sacks weren't important, but that the overall game stats of Team A having more sacks that Team B isn't a great stat IMHO. Break out the sacks to early sacks and 4th Quarter sacks. I think early sacks are a lot more meaningful predictor of winning and that the team with more sacks in the 4th Quarter is generally the team with the lead, so it isn't meaningful.Just to restate what I was trying to say above, I think early sacks contribute to winning whereas 4th Quarter sacks are more of a result of winning.

I get the gist of where you are going if the game is a blow out, but simply look back at the final minutes of the last Super Bowl and it makes a pretty strong case for the strength of the late sacks and how they can impact a game. The Pats didn't sack Eli when they had the chance and he got off the pass to Tyree. Then the Giants sacked Brady for a 10 yard loss on the ensuing drive and it all but ended the Pats chances.Some sacks are more meaningful than others based on game situation, but the same can be said for TD's, INT's, etc.

 

[CalBear]

I decided to look at second-and-more-than-10, just because I can, and found one of the strangest statistical anomalies I've ever seen:

YTG Y/A FD% YD/RSH FD% PLAYS FD FD%15 7.01 16% 5.30 6% 1106 144 13%14 6.78 15% 5.54 8% 739 96 13%13 6.83 19% 5.16 7% 1011 153 15%12 6.40 19% 3.75 8% 1403 210 15%11 6.52 23% 2.23 5% 2318 357 15%10 6.85 28% 4.64 13% 13728 2902 21%9 6.67 30% 4.43 14% 4176 1008 24%8 6.34 33% 4.46 17% 5326 1442 27%7 6.86 39% 4.43 21% 5138 1612 31%6 6.45 43% 4.26 25% 4468 1505 34%5 6.97 50% 4.38 32% 4192 1683 40%4 7.11 53% 4.40 40% 3314 1508 46%3 6.36 57% 4.27 50% 2690 1415 53%2 6.92 61% 4.19 64% 2311 1466 63%1 6.91 60% 4.25 81% 2703 2021 75%Look at that number for rushing second and 11--it's so far off the rest of this data set that I re-ran the numbers three times to make sure I wasn't setting the parameters incorrectly. And the sample size isn't that small; 2253 rushes and 8534 passes. I just thought of one reason for the anomaly; kneel-down plays probably put you at second and 11 or 12, and another kneel-down play will then count as another loss. Hard to eliminate that from the data, though.

 

[T Bell]

I decided to look at second-and-more-than-10, just because I can, and found one of the strangest statistical anomalies I've ever seen:

YTG	Y/A 	FD%	YD/RSH 	FD%	PLAYS	FD	FD%15	7.01	16%	5.30	6%	1106	144	13%14	6.78	15%	5.54	8%	739	96	13%13	6.83	19%	5.16	7%	1011	153	15%12	6.40	19%	3.75	8%	1403	210	15%11	6.52	23%	2.23	5%	2318	357	15%10	6.85	28%	4.64	13%   13728	2902	21%9	6.67	30%	4.43	14%	4176	1008	24%8	6.34	33%	4.46	17%	5326	1442	27%7	6.86	39%	4.43	21%	5138	1612	31%6	6.45	43%	4.26	25%	4468	1505	34%5	6.97	50%	4.38	32%	4192	1683	40%4	7.11	53%	4.40	40%	3314	1508	46%3	6.36	57%	4.27	50%	2690	1415	53%2	6.92	61%	4.19	64%	2311	1466	63%1	6.91	60%	4.25	81%	2703	2021	75%

Look at that number for rushing second and 11--it's so far off the rest of this data set that I re-ran the numbers three times to make sure I wasn't setting the parameters incorrectly. And the sample size isn't that small; 2253 rushes and 8534 passes. I just thought of one reason for the anomaly; kneel-down plays probably put you at second and 11 or 12, and another kneel-down play will then count as another loss. Hard to eliminate that from the data, though.

How does this data incorporate and-goal plays? Is every 1st-and-goal counted as a 1st-and-10? If so, that might explain some of that anomaly too.

 

[cstu]

I decided to look at second-and-more-than-10, just because I can, and found one of the strangest statistical anomalies I've ever seen:

YTG	Y/A 	FD%	YD/RSH 	FD%	PLAYS	FD	FD%15	7.01	16%	5.30	6%	1106	144	13%14	6.78	15%	5.54	8%	739	96	13%13	6.83	19%	5.16	7%	1011	153	15%12	6.40	19%	3.75	8%	1403	210	15%11	6.52	23%	2.23	5%	2318	357	15%10	6.85	28%	4.64	13%   13728	2902	21%9	6.67	30%	4.43	14%	4176	1008	24%8	6.34	33%	4.46	17%	5326	1442	27%7	6.86	39%	4.43	21%	5138	1612	31%6	6.45	43%	4.26	25%	4468	1505	34%5	6.97	50%	4.38	32%	4192	1683	40%4	7.11	53%	4.40	40%	3314	1508	46%3	6.36	57%	4.27	50%	2690	1415	53%2	6.92	61%	4.19	64%	2311	1466	63%1	6.91	60%	4.25	81%	2703	2021	75%

Look at that number for rushing second and 11--it's so far off the rest of this data set that I re-ran the numbers three times to make sure I wasn't setting the parameters incorrectly. And the sample size isn't that small; 2253 rushes and 8534 passes. I just thought of one reason for the anomaly; kneel-down plays probably put you at second and 11 or 12, and another kneel-down play will then count as another loss. Hard to eliminate that from the data, though.

The only way to counter that effect would be to find out how many kneel-downs there were. The other possibility that comes to mind is that RB's who get tackled for a 1 or 2 yard loss may be on poor running teams, so they don't get much on 2nd down either.

 

[CalBear]

How does this data incorporate and-goal plays? Is every 1st-and-goal counted as a 1st-and-10? If so, that might explain some of that anomaly too.

These data are only for plays outside the opponent's 11.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I decided to look at second-and-more-than-10, just because I can, and found one of the strangest statistical anomalies I've ever seen:

YTG Y/A FD% YD/RSH FD% PLAYS FD FD%15 7.01 16% 5.30 6% 1106 144 13%14 6.78 15% 5.54 8% 739 96 13%13 6.83 19% 5.16 7% 1011 153 15%12 6.40 19% 3.75 8% 1403 210 15%11 6.52 23% 2.23 5% 2318 357 15%10 6.85 28% 4.64 13% 13728 2902 21%9 6.67 30% 4.43 14% 4176 1008 24%8 6.34 33% 4.46 17% 5326 1442 27%7 6.86 39% 4.43 21% 5138 1612 31%6 6.45 43% 4.26 25% 4468 1505 34%5 6.97 50% 4.38 32% 4192 1683 40%4 7.11 53% 4.40 40% 3314 1508 46%3 6.36 57% 4.27 50% 2690 1415 53%2 6.92 61% 4.19 64% 2311 1466 63%1 6.91 60% 4.25 81% 2703 2021 75%Look at that number for rushing second and 11--it's so far off the rest of this data set that I re-ran the numbers three times to make sure I wasn't setting the parameters incorrectly. And the sample size isn't that small; 2253 rushes and 8534 passes. I just thought of one reason for the anomaly; kneel-down plays probably put you at second and 11 or 12, and another kneel-down play will then count as another loss. Hard to eliminate that from the data, though.

The only way to counter that effect would be to find out how many kneel-downs there were.

Or use rushes only by RBs so that QB kneel-downs are excluded.Rushes on 2nd and 11 by RBs

 

[CalBear]

Or use rushes only by RBs so that QB kneel-downs are excluded.

Rushes on 2nd and 11 by RBs

Ah, good point. Although that skews the data a little bit, since the rest of it includes QB rushes, and QBs rush for higher YPC than RBs. I suppose that poses another question relevant to this thread; are RB rushing yards worth more than QB rushing yards?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Or use rushes only by RBs so that QB kneel-downs are excluded.

Rushes on 2nd and 11 by RBs

Ah, good point. Although that skews the data a little bit, since the rest of it includes QB rushes, and QBs rush for higher YPC than RBs. I suppose that poses another question relevant to this thread; are RB rushing yards worth more than QB rushing yards?

Now that is a question worth asking.

 

[stevegamer]

I decided to look at second-and-more-than-10, just because I can, and found one of the strangest statistical anomalies I've ever seen:Look at that number for rushing second and 11--it's so far off the rest of this data set that I re-ran the numbers three times to make sure I wasn't setting the parameters incorrectly. And the sample size isn't that small; 2253 rushes and 8534 passes. I just thought of one reason for the anomaly; kneel-down plays probably put you at second and 11 or 12, and another kneel-down play will then count as another loss. Hard to eliminate that from the data, though.

Could you eliminate it by controlling for the time on the clock, or the period of the game? Kneel-downs really only happen late in the 4th quarter, or at the very end of the 2nd, normally.

 

[cstu]

Reminds me of what bothers me about Reggie Bush - his YPC on 1st downs has been terrible. Of backs the past two years with a minimum of 50 1st down carries, Bush has ranked #77 and #83 in YPC.

Reggie Bush rb 2006 72 254 3.53 9 2 42 29 277 9.55 8 1 69.10

Reggie Bush rb 2007 85 315 3.71 9 2 39 32 180 5.62 8 1 67.50

 

[burd]

let's ask Coach Cower why rushing years are worth more than passing yards...

"I know that when I was there, we ran the ball first. Right now, it looks like they're really looking to throw the football first and foremost, and Ben can do that. I'm not a big stat guy, so it never concerned me. I know we won a championship our way, and when we got a lead I took the air out of the ball. It wasn't always to the delight of the receivers and quarterbacks, but at the same time I thought it was the best way to win football games".

nuff said

 

[T Bell]

Or use rushes only by RBs so that QB kneel-downs are excluded.

Rushes on 2nd and 11 by RBs

Ah, good point. Although that skews the data a little bit, since the rest of it includes QB rushes, and QBs rush for higher YPC than RBs. I suppose that poses another question relevant to this thread; are RB rushing yards worth more than QB rushing yards?

Now that is a question worth asking.

My gut feeling is "no", especially after some threshhold level like 10 yards per game. QB's who can get that additional yardage put a huge amount of pressure on defenses, so much so that (as we've seen) those offenses can be successful despite serious shortcomings in the passing game.

 

[T Bell]

I decided to look at second-and-more-than-10, just because I can, and found one of the strangest statistical anomalies I've ever seen:

Look at that number for rushing second and 11--it's so far off the rest of this data set that I re-ran the numbers three times to make sure I wasn't setting the parameters incorrectly. And the sample size isn't that small; 2253 rushes and 8534 passes.

I just thought of one reason for the anomaly; kneel-down plays probably put you at second and 11 or 12, and another kneel-down play will then count as another loss. Hard to eliminate that from the data, though.

Could you eliminate it by controlling for the time on the clock, or the period of the game? Kneel-downs really only happen late in the 4th quarter, or at the very end of the 2nd, normally.

Booooooooooo!/Wembley

 

[ookook]

Now, it looks like largely what's being measured here is the play selection on the offensive side. But it certainly doesn't seem that offenses are more effective at second-and-6 than they are at second-and-10 or second-and-4.

I am sure I am missing something, because it sounds like you are saying that it is just as likely a team will get a 1st down at 2nd and 10 as 2nd and 4. This cannot be true, eh?

 

[ookook]

I am sticking with:

(1) Rushing attempts have a much lower probability of resulting in no gain (or a loss). No gain or loss plays increase the likelihood of 3rd and long, whereas as even short running plays (2 yards) decrease those odds.

(2) NFL teams want to avoid 3rd and long because it allows the defenses to key in on one type of play way too much.

(3) The most apporiate measure of "success" is getting a first down as a result of a series, not yards per attempt (correlated though they may be).

-OOK

 

[CalBear]

Now, it looks like largely what's being measured here is the play selection on the offensive side. But it certainly doesn't seem that offenses are more effective at second-and-6 than they are at second-and-10 or second-and-4.

I am sure I am missing something, because it sounds like you are saying that it is just as likely a team will get a 1st down at 2nd and 10 as 2nd and 4. This cannot be true, eh?

No, that's not what I'm saying--see the FD% stats. Offenses at second-and-10 gain more yards per pass attempt and more yards per rush attempt than offenses at second-and-6, but offenses at second-and-6 get more first downs because they have a shorter distance to go.The difference between second-and-7 and second-and-6 is smaller than the difference between second-and-6 and second-and-5. So there's nothing special about second-and-6 that makes it easier. There's also not a bias towards rushing or passing attempts; at second-and-8, rushing attempts are more effective (gain more yardage relative to other situations) than passing attempts, but at second-and-6, the results are fairly balanced.

 

[CareerCreature]

I would say the reason is because if you can rush the ball for good yards it will open up the passing game most of the time.