Why rushing yards are worth more than passing yards (2 Viewers)

[Maurile Tremblay]

This is a pretty random post.

Over the last six years, teams have rushed 54% of the time on first and ten, and passed 46% of the time, despite the fact that they've gained 7.45 yards per pass attempt and just 4.28 yards per rush attempt. Even if we subtract 45 yards per interception, teams have averaged 5.75 adjusted yards per attempt -- still about a yard and a half better passing than running.

If passing gets better expected results, why do teams run more often than they pass?

There are several answers. The one I'll focus on is variance. Because variance is higher on pass attempts than rush attempts, rushing yards are worth more than passing yards.

Let's use a numerical example to show why.

In this article criticizing the NFL Passer Rating, Allen Barra writes: "Ask yourself this simple question: Would you rather complete two of three passes for nine yards or one of three for 10?"

Barra implies that the answer is obvious. You'd rather have ten yards than nine. And he's right, of course, but only because ten is kind of a magic number in football. Let's change it up slightly and ask if we'd rather have a 1/3 chance on each pass attempt of getting 9 yards, or a 2/3 chance on each pass attempt of getting 4 yards.

I'd take the latter. We have four downs to make ten yards. With a 33.3% completion percentage at 9 yards per completion, we'd have a 40.7% chance of gaining at least ten yards on four attempts. With a 66.7% completion percentage at 4 yards per completion, we'd have a 59.2% chance of gaining at least ten yards on four attempts.

Even though our expected number of yards per play is higher in the first scenario, our expected number of first downs per drive is higher in the second, and that's more important. The reason is the higher variance in the first scenario.

By the same token, an expected 4.28 yards per rush with a lower variance might be worth more than an expected 5.75 adjusted yards per pass with a higher variance.

This is why one oft-repeated criticism of Passer Rating -- that it gives any weight at all to completion percentage -- seems to me off the mark. If two QBs both average 7.0 yards per attempt, the guy with the higher completion percentage will generally be more effective. He'll be more likely to keep the chains moving because he'll produce less variance. (In other words, his passing yards will be more like rushing yards, and will thus be worth more.)

 

[Ace Matherton]

Passing is all or nothing (sometimes even less with a sack) running not only sets the tone for the game but based on the percentages is FAR less likely to result in a loss. I would expect part of the reason passing yards are much greater than rushing on 1st down is the defence expecting a run and playing off the pass.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You know, I forgot to include sacks.

Teams lost 7152 yards due to sacks on 17045 pass attempts last year, or 0.42 yards per attempt. I suspect a disproportionate number of sacks occurred on third downs, which means that it's probably more like 0.3 yards per attempt on first downs. But let's use 0.42.

That still gives teams an adjusted 5.33 yards per pass attempt compared to 4.28 per rush attempt. So passing still looks about 25% better than running when you don't take variance into account.

 

[Couch Potato]

You know, I forgot to include sacks. Teams lost 7152 yards due to sacks on 17045 pass attempts last year, or 0.42 yards per attempt. I suspect a disproportionate number of sacks occurred on third downs, which means that it's probably more like 0.3 yards per attempt on first downs. But let's use 0.42.That still gives teams an adjusted 5.33 yards per pass attempt compared to 4.28 per rush attempt. So passing still looks about 25% better than running when you don't take variance into account.

Following up on sacks, it's a fact that a team's largest fumble total is caused by QBs being sacked, not RBs while running the ball. That too factors into the mix.

 

[Thorpe]

Shouldn't you be looking at yards/attempt on first down only? What does rushing on 3rd and 1 or passing on 3rd and 8 have to do with 1st and 10? In the first case, I'd take a 2 yard run, and in the second I'm mad if I get a 7 yard pass.

 

[twitch]

Someone needed to give New England this information prior to the Superbowl, when they ran the ball 16 times and threw it 53. Maurile, will you CC this to Belichick for me please? Ive been pimping Laurence Maroney to no end with the basic logic youve provided here at the forefront, and my credibility, what little I actually have, is taking quite a beating for it. I need him to feed Maroney the rock this year and get past thinking he's Air Coryell. Thanks. Much appreciated.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Shouldn't you be looking at yards/attempt on first down only?

Yes, that's what I did. I should have made it clearer.

 

[FUBAR]

Running game is more valuable than the passing game, I can probably buy that statement.

But this post doesn't answer why a rushing yard is worth more than a passing yard, or if it is, why teams still bother to pass almost half the time.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'll get more detailed in a bit, but I'll start with just this:

1) In the '70s, the running game was a lot more valuable than the passing game.

2) After a couple of big rule changes and some philosophical and physical changes, the passing game has become way more important. It's probably more important than the running game, despite MT's variance post.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=482

I addressed this question a few months back, and there's all the data you'd want on there.

 

[Couch Potato]

The running game becomes relatively more important to a team whose defense is inferior to its opponent's offense, taking more time off the clock, shortening the game, and keeping its defense off the field.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But this post doesn't answer why a rushing yard is worth more than a passing yard, or if it is, why teams still bother to pass almost half the time.

Let's do it this way.One first downs over the past six years, teams have completed 62% of their passes for 12 yards per completion. They've thrown interceptions about 3.8% of the time, and gotten sacked maybe about 6% of the time. (I don't have data on sacks for just first downs, but the overall rate for all downs is about 6.5%.) If we count interceptions as -45 yards and sacks as -6.5 yards (which is the average for all downs), that means we've got roughly the following range of results:3.8% -- average of -45 yards6% -- average of -6.5 yards28.2% -- exactly 0 yards62% -- average of +12 yards(This ignores penalties and fumbles.)For rushes, we get roughly the following range of results:100% -- average of 4.28 yards(This also ignores penalties and fumbles.)Each of the above categories can further be broken down. For completions, the average is 12 yards, but the standard deviation is about 9 yards per catch. For rushes, the average is 4.28 yards, and the standard deviation is about 5 yards per rush.(After typing all that out, I realize that I can't really do anything with it. To calculate whether the range of results from passing is better than the range of results of running, or vice versa, is way beyond the scope of this message board post.)What should be obvious is that the variance within the range of passing results is much higher than the variance within the range of rushing attempts.When the average play is successful, lower the variance is better. When the average play is unsuccessful, higher variance is better. You can convince yourself of this by doing the following thought experiment. The average rush earns 4.28 yards. If a team got exactly 4.28 on every rush (for zero variance), it would be unstoppable. It would get a first down every three plays. It would never ever punt or have to settle for a field goal. Zero variance would be completely awesome. If, however, a team got only 2.4 yards per rush, then a variance of zero would mean that it could never get any first downs without passing the ball. To get a first down by rushing, you'd need to add a bunch of variance so that some plays could get more than 2.4 yards (while others would get less).The average plays by NFL offenses -- both rushing and passing -- are sufficiently successful to guarantee unlimited first downs if variance were zero. So the lower the variance the better.If rushing and passing both produced 5 yards per attempt, but passing had a higher variance, then rushes would be more valuable. That means averaging 5 yards per rush would be better than averaging 5 yards per pass. So rushing yards are more valuable.I suspect that the actual results teams achieve on first down -- not measured in yards, but in their true benefit in helping the team win -- are pretty close to each other for runs and passes. That is, getting 4.28 yards per rush on first down with a relatively low variance is pretty much equivalent to getting 5.33 yards per pass attempt on first down with a higher variance. If one result were much better than the other, offenses would do it more often than they do now, causing defenses to adjust their focus, and a different equilibrium would be reached. If anything, rushing is probably slightly preferable to passing, which is why teams currently do it a bit more.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

2) After a couple of big rule changes and some philosophical and physical changes, the passing game has become way more important. It's probably more important than the running game, despite MT's variance post.

It's not really despite my post.I'm saying that 100 rushing yards are worth more than 100 passing yards (on the same number of attempts). But teams tend to average about twice as many passing yards as rushing yards. I'm definitely not saying that 100 rushing yards are worth more than 200 passing yards (or that having an above-average rushing attack is more important than having an above-average passing attack, or anything similar).

 

[Chase Stuart]

2) After a couple of big rule changes and some philosophical and physical changes, the passing game has become way more important. It's probably more important than the running game, despite MT's variance post.

It's not really despite my post.I'm saying that 100 rushing yards are worth more than 100 passing yards. But teams tend to average about twice as many passing yards as rushing yards. I'm definitely not saying that 100 rushing yards are worth more than 200 passing yards (or that having an above-average rushing attack is more important than having an above-average passing attack, or anything similar).

Oh. I thought you were implying that an above-average rushing attack was more important than an above average passing attack. That was undoubtedly true in the '70s, but I don't think it's true anymore.I agree with you that 100 rushing yards are worth more than 100 passing yards, on the same number of attempts. I also agree that the fact that teams rush the ball slightly more often than pass on first down is a pretty good indicator that rushing is preferable. On the other hand, teams do pass more in general than they rush.

 

[CalBear]

But this post doesn't answer why a rushing yard is worth more than a passing yard, or if it is, why teams still bother to pass almost half the time.

Let's do it this way.One first downs over the past six years, teams have completed 62% of their passes for 12 yards per completion. They've thrown interceptions about 3.8% of the time, and gotten sacked maybe about 6% of the time. (I don't have data on sacks for just first downs, but the overall rate for all downs is about 6.5%.) If we count interceptions as -45 yards and sacks as -6.5 yards (which is the average for all downs), that means we've got roughly the following range of results:3.8% -- average of -45 yards6% -- average of -6.5 yards28.2% -- exactly 0 yards62% -- average of +12 yards(This ignores penalties and fumbles.)For rushes, we get roughly the following range of results:100% -- average of 4.28 yards(This also ignores penalties and fumbles.)Each of the above categories can further be broken down. For completions, the average is 12 yards, but the standard deviation is about 9 yards per catch. For rushes, the average is 4.28 yards, and the standard deviation is about 5 yards per rush.

I don't think you've proved that the variance is higher on passes. An average of 4.28 with standard deviation of 5 has significantly more variance than an average of 12 with a standard deviation of 9. The standard deviation for passes would go up if you included the incompletions, but it also would skew the curve and make standard deviation a sub-optimal tool for measuring the variance.

 

[homebrumiester]

I don't think you've proved that the variance is higher on passes. An average of 4.28 with standard deviation of 5 has significantly more variance than an average of 12 with a standard deviation of 9. The standard deviation for passes would go up if you included the incompletions, but it also would skew the curve and make standard deviation a sub-optimal tool for measuring the variance.

I really should have been paying attention in statistics class and then I might have a vague idea of what you are trying to say. But alas I wasn't and now I just feel stupid. (come to think about it that is how I felt in statistics class).

 

[Chase Stuart]

But this post doesn't answer why a rushing yard is worth more than a passing yard, or if it is, why teams still bother to pass almost half the time.

Let's do it this way.One first downs over the past six years, teams have completed 62% of their passes for 12 yards per completion. They've thrown interceptions about 3.8% of the time, and gotten sacked maybe about 6% of the time. (I don't have data on sacks for just first downs, but the overall rate for all downs is about 6.5%.) If we count interceptions as -45 yards and sacks as -6.5 yards (which is the average for all downs), that means we've got roughly the following range of results:3.8% -- average of -45 yards6% -- average of -6.5 yards28.2% -- exactly 0 yards62% -- average of +12 yards(This ignores penalties and fumbles.)For rushes, we get roughly the following range of results:100% -- average of 4.28 yards(This also ignores penalties and fumbles.)Each of the above categories can further be broken down. For completions, the average is 12 yards, but the standard deviation is about 9 yards per catch. For rushes, the average is 4.28 yards, and the standard deviation is about 5 yards per rush.

I don't think you've proved that the variance is higher on passes. An average of 4.28 with standard deviation of 5 has significantly more variance than an average of 12 with a standard deviation of 9. The standard deviation for passes would go up if you included the incompletions, but it also would skew the curve and make standard deviation a sub-optimal tool for measuring the variance.

Why wouldn't you include non-complete pass attempts?

 

[cdwood]

2) After a couple of big rule changes and some philosophical and physical changes, the passing game has become way more important. It's probably more important than the running game, despite MT's variance post.

It's not really despite my post.I'm saying that 100 rushing yards are worth more than 100 passing yards. But teams tend to average about twice as many passing yards as rushing yards. I'm definitely not saying that 100 rushing yards are worth more than 200 passing yards (or that having an above-average rushing attack is more important than having an above-average passing attack, or anything similar).

Oh. I thought you were implying that an above-average rushing attack was more important than an above average passing attack. That was undoubtedly true in the '70s, but I don't think it's true anymore.I agree with you that 100 rushing yards are worth more than 100 passing yards, on the same number of attempts. I also agree that the fact that teams rush the ball slightly more often than pass on first down is a pretty good indicator that rushing is preferable. On the other hand, teams do pass more in general than they rush.

In general, successfully rushing the ball opens up the passing game, and ofcourse the obvious one, when a team gets behind in the game, they have to start passing more in order to get more yardage in fewer attempts/less time.Christopher

 

[Ozymandias]

I could be wrong about this, but I thought yards lost due to sacks were subtracted from the team's (but not the QB's) passing totals.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I could be wrong about this, but I thought yards lost due to sacks were subtracted from the team's (but not the QB's) passing totals.

They typically are, but they weren't in my first post because I was using info from the Data Dominator, and I'm pretty sure sacks aren't included there.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I'll add my laymans "football" reasoning to it... I want my guys hitting them, more often then not.

When I run - My Olinemen find some defenders and hit them. My TEs and WRs find someone and hit them. My FBs and RBs even hit people.

Maybe a small consideration at the onset, but after an hour or two of getting hit - it takes a serious toll. Especially if I remain effective while running.

This just doesn't happen we are passing. Thats one big reason why equal yardage between rushing and passing is not nearly equal in value.

 

[CalBear]

I don't think you've proved that the variance is higher on passes. An average of 4.28 with standard deviation of 5 has significantly more variance than an average of 12 with a standard deviation of 9. The standard deviation for passes would go up if you included the incompletions, but it also would skew the curve and make standard deviation a sub-optimal tool for measuring the variance.

Why wouldn't you include non-complete pass attempts?

I think you have to include non-complete pass attempts if you want to establish variance, but when you do that for pass attempts, the curve no longer looks anything like a bell curve, so standard deviation is no longer a meaningful number.For those who aren't stat geeks [though you're probably in the wrong thread], "standard deviation" is the result of a formula which measures how far away from the average (mean) the rest of the numbers are. Standard deviation is a useful measure on "normal" populations, where the distribution of numbers looks like the typical bell curve--for example, if you wanted to measure whether RBs or WRs have greater variance in height, the standard deviation of the two populations would be a good way to do it, because heights follow a fairly typical curve. But if the numbers you're plugging in don't fit a normal curve, standard deviation doesn't tell you much that's useful, because the way it's calculated assumes a normal curve.

Also, to measure variance, you have to consider the relative magnitude of the variance, not the absolute magnitude. That's pretty simple if you think about it; if Ron Dayne always rushes for 2 yards, plus or minus 1, and Ladanian Tomlinson always rushes for 5 yards, plus or minus 2, Tomlinson's numbers have less variance. (Dayne's numbers can be off by 50%, Tomlinson's only 40%).

The problem with measuring variance in passing yardage is, the single most common case is an incompletion. (That is, there are more incompletions than there are completions for exactly 12 yards, or exactly 11 yards or 13 yards or whatever). You need to consider incompletions when computing the average (mean) yards gained per pass attempt, but they totally throw off your bell curve. It seems clear from the numbers above that "completed passes" has less variance than "all rushing attempts," and we know that "all pass attempts including incompletions" has more variance than "completed passes," but it's not clear that "all pass attempts including incompletions" therefore has a higher variance than "all rushing attempts."

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't think you've proved that the variance is higher on passes. An average of 4.28 with standard deviation of 5 has significantly more variance than an average of 12 with a standard deviation of 9. The standard deviation for passes would go up if you included the incompletions, but it also would skew the curve and make standard deviation a sub-optimal tool for measuring the variance.

Why wouldn't you include non-complete pass attempts?

I think you have to include non-complete pass attempts if you want to establish variance, but when you do that for pass attempts, the curve no longer looks anything like a bell curve, so standard deviation is no longer a meaningful number.For those who aren't stat geeks [though you're probably in the wrong thread], "standard deviation" is the result of a formula which measures how far away from the average (mean) the rest of the numbers are. Standard deviation is a useful measure on "normal" populations, where the distribution of numbers looks like the typical bell curve--for example, if you wanted to measure whether RBs or WRs have greater variance in height, the standard deviation of the two populations would be a good way to do it, because heights follow a fairly typical curve. But if the numbers you're plugging in don't fit a normal curve, standard deviation doesn't tell you much that's useful, because the way it's calculated assumes a normal curve.

Also, to measure variance, you have to consider the relative magnitude of the variance, not the absolute magnitude. That's pretty simple if you think about it; if Ron Dayne always rushes for 2 yards, plus or minus 1, and Ladanian Tomlinson always rushes for 5 yards, plus or minus 2, Tomlinson's numbers have less variance. (Dayne's numbers can be off by 50%, Tomlinson's only 40%).

The problem with measuring variance in passing yardage is, the single most common case is an incompletion. (That is, there are more incompletions than there are completions for exactly 12 yards, or exactly 11 yards or 13 yards or whatever). You need to consider incompletions when computing the average (mean) yards gained per pass attempt, but they totally throw off your bell curve. It seems clear from the numbers above that "completed passes" has less variance than "all rushing attempts," and we know that "all pass attempts including incompletions" has more variance than "completed passes," but it's not clear that "all pass attempts including incompletions" therefore has a higher variance than "all rushing attempts."

Thanks. I see your point now.But why couldn't we consider our data on pass attempts as a probability distribution, and use the expected value instead of the mean to measure variability? If we did that, I'm pretty sure pass attempts will have a much higher variance.

 

[Riffraff]

From an OL standpoint:

Rushing means OL gets to tee off on the defenders. Push forward, an offensive attack. Go where you want the ball to go. Less time for the play to mature.

Passing means DL gets to tee off on the offense. Fall back, a defensive movement. Take what they give you. More time for the play to mature.

Perhaps the answer lies in the trenches.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't think you've proved that the variance is higher on passes.

You're right that I didn't give a proof, but I don't think it's really in dispute, is it?Passing produces results at each end of the spectrum more often -- a larger percentage of pass plays than run plays result in big negatives (interceptions and sacks) and big positives (20+ yard plays).(Good explanation of why standard deviation isn't a good way to measure variance in a skewed population, by the way.)

 

[CalBear]

But why couldn't we consider our data on pass attempts as a probability distribution, and use the expected value instead of the mean to measure variability? If we did that, I'm pretty sure pass attempts will have a much higher variance.

That's plausible but I don't think it's proven. I'd expect the absolute variance to be higher for pass attempts, but I'd also think the expected value is higher, so the relative variance might be comparable.

 

[msommer]

Since I am not a stat geek this may be irrelevant but it seems to me that the whole subset of outcomes of rushing and passing on 1st downs would have to be analysed in order to determine the value, not merely the averages. I have a hard time accepting a premise that states that a rush or pass is guaranteed to get the average result will not result in a flawed analysis and conclusion. I fully understand that this is a monstrous task and probably one that should be done individually by team - it could, however, show us why a team choose to pass or rush on 1st downs.

 

[cstu]

Because the 1st down play sets the tone for the rest of the series, it seems like a good way to measure QB's is what percentage of the time do they produce a positive outcome (pass completion, positive run vs. incomplete pass, sack or INT) on 1st down.

Anyone care to break this down?

 

[FUBAR]

I don't think you've proved that the variance is higher on passes.

You're right that I didn't give a proof, but I don't think it's really in dispute, is it?Passing produces results at each end of the spectrum more often -- a larger percentage of pass plays than run plays result in big negatives (interceptions and sacks) and big positives (20+ yard plays).(Good explanation of why standard deviation isn't a good way to measure variance in a skewed population, by the way.)

It's not really in dispute, but you took the time to figure out the passing data, it would be interesting to see the rushing.I grew up watching Barry Sanders and Eddie George. There's no doubt running style matters if we're discussing variance.

 

[H.K.]

They've thrown interceptions about 3.8% of the time, and gotten sacked maybe about 6% of the time.

Turnover rates are big and I haven't seen them factored into the equation. What is the % of turnovers passing (interceptions and FL due to sacks) compared to FL rushing?Also, TOP will have a better yield while rushing the ball, as well.

Your post got me thinking, so I did a quick search. Results were obvious but they probably show more in terms of why rushing is more valuable than passing in terms of Wins and Losses:

SINS AND MYTHS

There are a bunch of clichés and truisms tied to the NFL. After crunching some numbers, we figured out which ones are deadly sins … and which are myths.

• Five deadly sins (losing percentage)

Sin No. 1: Trailing after the first quarter (75 percent)

Sin No. 2: Losing the turnover battle (81 percent)

Sin No. 3: Allowing a 100-yard runner (75 percent)

Sin No. 4: Allowing more sacks (70 percent)

Sin No. 5: Losing time of possession (67 percent)

 

[renesauz]

I think you stat geeks are trying to read more into the numbers then is there!

Standard deviation is almost worthless to this analysis...even for the runners. After all, it's almost impossible to have a ten yard rushing loss, but fairly common to have a ten yard rushing gain.

What situation do you like more? 2nd and 7 or better 80% of the time, but rarely worse then 2nd and 8...or 2nd and 2 40% of the time, but often worse, leaving 2nd and 10 or worse over 40% of the time?

Teams run on first more often because it provides more flexibility....on 3rd and 7 they are practicly forced to pass. On 3rd and 3 they can do anything they want. Running on first down sets up flexibility on 2nd and 3rd downs. It has little to do with which is more effective and everything to do with flexibility. That flexibility greatly enhances the effectiveness of EITHER mode of attack. (IE: Passing numbers, I suspect, are much better on 3rd and 3 then they are on 3rd and 9....even if it appears a running situation. Inversely...running stats are much better on 3rd and 9 then on third and 3...but with no first down, does it matter?)

It isn't possible to prove definatively which mode of attack is "more valuable". Intuitively, rushing is SAFER on first, but passing is more valuable on most downs, and slightly more valuable overall. IT'S ALL ABOUT FLEXIBILITY!!!!

 

[stbugs]

They've thrown interceptions about 3.8% of the time, and gotten sacked maybe about 6% of the time.

Turnover rates are big and I haven't seen them factored into the equation. What is the % of turnovers passing (interceptions and FL due to sacks) compared to FL rushing?Also, TOP will have a better yield while rushing the ball, as well.

Your post got me thinking, so I did a quick search. Results were obvious but they probably show more in terms of why rushing is more valuable than passing in terms of Wins and Losses:

SINS AND MYTHS

There are a bunch of clichés and truisms tied to the NFL. After crunching some numbers, we figured out which ones are deadly sins … and which are myths.

• Five deadly sins (losing percentage)

Sin No. 1: Trailing after the first quarter (75 percent)

Sin No. 2: Losing the turnover battle (81 percent)

Sin No. 3: Allowing a 100-yard runner (75 percent)

Sin No. 4: Allowing more sacks (70 percent)

Sin No. 5: Losing time of possession (67 percent)

Not sure this is the cause for losing or the result. Obviously Sin No. 1 is ridiculously obvious. Might as well make this one the top one:Sin No. 0: Trailing after the fourth quarter (100 percent)

Anyway, I look at Sin No. 3 and Sin No. 5 and see how you could interpret that as being why rushing is more valuable. The flip side of the coin is that a team that is behind will start passing more and the team with the lead will start rushing more. Well, seems like it might be like a self fulfilling prophecy.

To me, the only interesting ones are 2 and 4. 2 is interesting to me because the turnover battle is a better indicator than leading after the 1st quarter. I think that shows how important turnovers really are. 4 is interesting because I wouldn't have even thought of that one, but you should. Nothing kills drives more than sacks (other than turnovers) and sacks often lead to turnovers.

By the way, if No. 2 is 81%, why isn't it No. 1 which is only 75%?

 

[stbugs]

Someone needed to give New England this information prior to the Superbowl, when they ran the ball 16 times and threw it 53. Maurile, will you CC this to Belichick for me please? Ive been pimping Laurence Maroney to no end with the basic logic youve provided here at the forefront, and my credibility, what little I actually have, is taking quite a beating for it. I need him to feed Maroney the rock this year and get past thinking he's Air Coryell. Thanks. Much appreciated.

He has won you NE fans 3 Super Bowls and last year went 18-0 pre Super Bowl and you actually have the nerve to question his coaching? Seriously, they are one inch away from Tyree dropping a miracle catch or an interception in which case they go 19-0.I can see all of the NE haters and the NE lovers, but for a NE lover to question a coach who has been nothing short of amazing in NE seems ridiculous.Personally, as a Brady owner last year, I revelled in the fact that they broke team and individual scoring records all over the place and as a football fan I was hoping they would go undefeated just to see a team do it in my lifetime. I certainly wouldn't as a non-NE fan question anything that he has done as a coach outside of spygate, which I personally think is ridiculously overblown.

 

[H.K.]

They've thrown interceptions about 3.8% of the time, and gotten sacked maybe about 6% of the time.

Turnover rates are big and I haven't seen them factored into the equation. What is the % of turnovers passing (interceptions and FL due to sacks) compared to FL rushing?Also, TOP will have a better yield while rushing the ball, as well.

Your post got me thinking, so I did a quick search. Results were obvious but they probably show more in terms of why rushing is more valuable than passing in terms of Wins and Losses:

SINS AND MYTHS

There are a bunch of clichés and truisms tied to the NFL. After crunching some numbers, we figured out which ones are deadly sins … and which are myths.

• Five deadly sins (losing percentage)

Sin No. 1: Trailing after the first quarter (75 percent)

Sin No. 2: Losing the turnover battle (81 percent)

Sin No. 3: Allowing a 100-yard runner (75 percent)

Sin No. 4: Allowing more sacks (70 percent)

Sin No. 5: Losing time of possession (67 percent)

Not sure this is the cause for losing or the result. Obviously Sin No. 1 is ridiculously obvious. Might as well make this one the top one:Sin No. 0: Trailing after the fourth quarter (100 percent)

Anyway, I look at Sin No. 3 and Sin No. 5 and see how you could interpret that as being why rushing is more valuable. The flip side of the coin is that a team that is behind will start passing more and the team with the lead will start rushing more. Well, seems like it might be like a self fulfilling prophecy.

To me, the only interesting ones are 2 and 4. 2 is interesting to me because the turnover battle is a better indicator than leading after the 1st quarter. I think that shows how important turnovers really are. 4 is interesting because I wouldn't have even thought of that one, but you should. Nothing kills drives more than sacks (other than turnovers) and sacks often lead to turnovers.

By the way, if No. 2 is 81%, why isn't it No. 1 which is only 75%?

Good question, I am not sure why he had lower percentages ranked higher.I agree with you on TO's, which is why I asked MT to see if he had stats for them on 1st down resulting from rushes or passes. If you have a less likely chance for a TO, you also have a better chance of helping your TOP. I'd love to see the winning % of teams that win both TO & TOP in a game, but couldn't find it.

However, here's the most telling stat I did find regarding winning percentage:

Teams that use the "QB kneel down" two or more times in a game win over 90% of the time. Teams using it one play or less only win 46% of time.

If you want to win in the NFL, call kneel downs. Pretty simple, I am surprised more teams haven't figured it out.

 

[ookook]

Pehraps this is the same as what has been said, but here is why I think rushing is more valuable in this context: the odds of getting zero gain are much greater with passing and any incremental gain changes the probability of the next attempt being successful (for example, if success is defined as getting a first down). And what teams want to avoid is 3rd and long, where I think more interceptions, sacks, and probably even fumbles happen.

And surely may be related to both central tendency and dispursion, but not so directly.

So say that 80% of the rushing attempts on first and second down yield 1.5 to 5.5 yards. By second down even if I ran for only 2.5 yards I have increased the odds that I will not be looking at third and long if I just rush again for 2.5 yards. Odds that I will be looking at something worse than 3 and 7 are quite small.

But say I pass with 50% completion rate and attempt 6 yard passes. Pretending they are independent events, there is a 25% chance I will be looking at third and 10, a situation to be avoided as now defenses can key on pass rush and pass defense, since rushing is not likely to yield a first down.

Does that make sense? I think it is all about avoiding third and long.

 

[burd]

I'll get more detailed in a bit, but I'll start with just this:

1) In the '70s, the running game was a lot more valuable than the passing game.

2) After a couple of big rule changes and some philosophical and physical changes, the passing game has become way more important. It's probably more important than the running game, despite MT's variance post.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=482

I addressed this question a few months back, and there's all the data you'd want on there.

despite which one is more important statistically, i think what's being overlooked is a coach's desire to avoid turnovers and control the clock. its been said a million times over that turnovers decide games. Turnovers: i believe that there's a greater risk of turnover through passing than through rushing ... although i admit i have no stats to back up this claim. There's greater risk of turnover when the ball is in not in a player's firm grasp ... it can be knocked out of the QBs hand, batted up in the air at the LOS, tipped, intercepted. Its more secure to have the ball in possession rather than exposing the ball to the defense.

Controlling the Clock: Everyone knows that a rush-heavy game typically ends quicker than a pass-heavy game because the clock stops every time a pass is incomplete. that being said, a game that is rush-heavy will contain fewer individual plays than a pass-heavy game because of the difference in clock movement. If you agree that the chance of turnover increases as the number of plays increases, then it would stand to reason that rushing the ball more often runs more time off the clock and therefore decreases the number of possible plays, thereby decreasing the likelihood of committing a turnover.

 

[stbugs]

They've thrown interceptions about 3.8% of the time, and gotten sacked maybe about 6% of the time.

Turnover rates are big and I haven't seen them factored into the equation. What is the % of turnovers passing (interceptions and FL due to sacks) compared to FL rushing?Also, TOP will have a better yield while rushing the ball, as well.

Your post got me thinking, so I did a quick search. Results were obvious but they probably show more in terms of why rushing is more valuable than passing in terms of Wins and Losses:

SINS AND MYTHS

There are a bunch of clichés and truisms tied to the NFL. After crunching some numbers, we figured out which ones are deadly sins … and which are myths.

• Five deadly sins (losing percentage)

Sin No. 1: Trailing after the first quarter (75 percent)

Sin No. 2: Losing the turnover battle (81 percent)

Sin No. 3: Allowing a 100-yard runner (75 percent)

Sin No. 4: Allowing more sacks (70 percent)

Sin No. 5: Losing time of possession (67 percent)

Not sure this is the cause for losing or the result. Obviously Sin No. 1 is ridiculously obvious. Might as well make this one the top one:Sin No. 0: Trailing after the fourth quarter (100 percent)

Anyway, I look at Sin No. 3 and Sin No. 5 and see how you could interpret that as being why rushing is more valuable. The flip side of the coin is that a team that is behind will start passing more and the team with the lead will start rushing more. Well, seems like it might be like a self fulfilling prophecy.

To me, the only interesting ones are 2 and 4. 2 is interesting to me because the turnover battle is a better indicator than leading after the 1st quarter. I think that shows how important turnovers really are. 4 is interesting because I wouldn't have even thought of that one, but you should. Nothing kills drives more than sacks (other than turnovers) and sacks often lead to turnovers.

By the way, if No. 2 is 81%, why isn't it No. 1 which is only 75%?

Good question, I am not sure why he had lower percentages ranked higher.I agree with you on TO's, which is why I asked MT to see if he had stats for them on 1st down resulting from rushes or passes. If you have a less likely chance for a TO, you also have a better chance of helping your TOP. I'd love to see the winning % of teams that win both TO & TOP in a game, but couldn't find it.

However, here's the most telling stat I did find regarding winning percentage:

Teams that use the "QB kneel down" two or more times in a game win over 90% of the time. Teams using it one play or less only win 46% of time.

If you want to win in the NFL, call kneel downs. Pretty simple, I am surprised more teams haven't figured it out.

Exactly. That is why 100 yard rushers/TOP seem a little meaningless to me because having a lead (which usually means winning ) will lead to better TOP/rushing to close out a game and on the other side being behind will lead to more passing/worse TOP and actually probably more TOs and Sacks.

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.

 

[Catbird]

Lots of great. thought challenging, perspectives here, along with the stats I can hear in concept but not play with much myself. But I think Renesauz is closest to the heart of motivation for running over passing on first down with flexability, although I think even that goes further. IMO the reason flexability is so important is that the defense doesn't know what to expect and can't stack or nickel. Getting 4 yards on 1st means the D has to play straight up again. An incompletion lets them shade toward pass D. Because a run is more likely to get you 4 (even if a pass is more likely to get you 5 or 6) makes it more likely that the D will be unable to shift either way, and that's what gives the offense, calling the plays, its best advantage.

But I love the smash mouth analysis and its physical effect on the game as well. Has to be a huge consideration.

 

[CalBear]

Getting 4 yards on 1st means the D has to play straight up again. An incompletion lets them shade toward pass D. Because a run is more likely to get you 4 (even if a pass is more likely to get you 5 or 6) makes it more likely that the D will be unable to shift either way, and that's what gives the offense, calling the plays, its best advantage.

There are a lot of assumptions being made here about what's good for the offense. So let's look at second down.

YTG	  Pass Y/A	   Rush Y/A10		  6.8			4.69		   6.5			4.38		   6.1			4.47		   6.6			4.36		   6.1			4.15		   6.4			4.24		   6.4			4.13		   5.7			3.92		   5.9			3.71		   5.7			3.5

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.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Variance the reason why a RB who gets 5 yards per attempt is great, but a QB who gets 5 yards per attempt sucks big time.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

2) After a couple of big rule changes and some philosophical and physical changes, the passing game has become way more important. It's probably more important than the running game, despite MT's variance post.

It's not really despite my post.I'm saying that 100 rushing yards are worth more than 100 passing yards. But teams tend to average about twice as many passing yards as rushing yards. I'm definitely not saying that 100 rushing yards are worth more than 200 passing yards (or that having an above-average rushing attack is more important than having an above-average passing attack, or anything similar).

Oh. I thought you were implying that an above-average rushing attack was more important than an above average passing attack. That was undoubtedly true in the '70s, but I don't think it's true anymore.I agree with you that 100 rushing yards are worth more than 100 passing yards, on the same number of attempts.

I also agree that the fact that teams rush the ball slightly more often than pass on first down is a pretty good indicator that rushing is preferable. On the other hand, teams do pass more in general than they rush.

Let me rephrase exactly what I'm saying. I should have said it like this at the outset.1. If a team averages X (adjusted) yards per pass attempt as well as X yards per rush attempt (for any X over about 3.5), it ought to greatly prefer running to passing.

2. If two QBs both average Y (adjusted) yards per pass attempt, the one with the higher completion percentage will generally be more effective (as long as Y is over about 3.5).

3. While the first point probably seems obvious, the second one may not. (I've read statements to the contrary from several people, including Allen Berra quoted in the original post.) My contention is that they're both true for pretty much the same reason. The reason is that if what you're doing is successful on average, it's better to be consistent than inconsistent. Rushing produces more consistent results than passing, and QBs with a higher completion percentage produce more consistent results than QBs with a lower completion percentage, other things being equal.

 

[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.

 

[Chase Stuart]

2) After a couple of big rule changes and some philosophical and physical changes, the passing game has become way more important. It's probably more important than the running game, despite MT's variance post.

It's not really despite my post.I'm saying that 100 rushing yards are worth more than 100 passing yards. But teams tend to average about twice as many passing yards as rushing yards. I'm definitely not saying that 100 rushing yards are worth more than 200 passing yards (or that having an above-average rushing attack is more important than having an above-average passing attack, or anything similar).

Oh. I thought you were implying that an above-average rushing attack was more important than an above average passing attack. That was undoubtedly true in the '70s, but I don't think it's true anymore.I agree with you that 100 rushing yards are worth more than 100 passing yards, on the same number of attempts.

I also agree that the fact that teams rush the ball slightly more often than pass on first down is a pretty good indicator that rushing is preferable. On the other hand, teams do pass more in general than they rush.

Let me rephrase exactly what I'm saying. I should have said it like this at the outset.1. If a team averages X (adjusted) yards per pass attempt as well as X yards per rush attempt (for any X over about 3.5), it ought to greatly prefer running to passing.

2. If two QBs both average Y (adjusted) yards per pass attempt, the one with the higher completion percentage will generally be more effective (as long as Y is over about 3.5).

3. While the first point probably seems obvious, the second one may not. (I've read statements to the contrary from several people, including Allen Berra quoted in the original post.) My contention is that they're both true for pretty much the same reason. The reason is that if what you're doing is successful on average, it's better to be consistent than inconsistent. Rushing produces more consistent results than passing, and QBs with a higher completion percentage produce more consistent results than QBs with a lower completion percentage, other things being equal.

 

[T Bell]

Isn't the simple answer "scarcity"? Each team produces fewer rushing yards than passing yards, so therefore each rushing yard (and the people who produce them, if we're talking about fantasy football) is worth more than each passing yard.

 

[cstu]

Getting 4 yards on 1st means the D has to play straight up again. An incompletion lets them shade toward pass D. Because a run is more likely to get you 4 (even if a pass is more likely to get you 5 or 6) makes it more likely that the D will be unable to shift either way, and that's what gives the offense, calling the plays, its best advantage.

There are a lot of assumptions being made here about what's good for the offense. So let's look at second down.

YTG	  Pass Y/A	   Rush Y/A10		  6.8			4.69		   6.5			4.38		   6.1			4.47		   6.6			4.36		   6.1			4.15		   6.4			4.24		   6.4			4.13		   5.7			3.92		   5.9			3.71		   5.7			3.5

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.

This is a flawed way to look at it since you aren't accounting for how the defense plays (playing pass on 2nd and 10 or playing run on 2nd and 1). It also looks like you included redzone plays, which would skew the numbers.I'd be more interested in knowing the percentage of times a 1st down is gained on all of those 2nd down yardages, as well as go a far as 20 YTG to see what effect sacks have on 1st downs.

 

[cstu]

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.

If you have a QB who gets sacked a lot, then he better be a guy who can throw loss passes. That's how Bledsoe survived so long in the NFL.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Isn't the simple answer "scarcity"? Each team produces fewer rushing yards than passing yards, so therefore each rushing yard (and the people who produce them, if we're talking about fantasy football) is worth more than each passing yard.

If that were true, that would make receiving yards by fullbacks really valuable.

 

[CalBear]

This is a flawed way to look at it since you aren't accounting for how the defense plays (playing pass on 2nd and 10 or playing run on 2nd and 1). It also looks like you included redzone plays, which would skew the numbers.

I'd be more interested in knowing the percentage of times a 1st down is gained on all of those 2nd down yardages.

I don't see why you have to account for how the defense plays; the question is, is the offense more likely to gain yardage on second and 6 than on second and 10 or second and 4? The answer appears to be "no."Here's a more comprehensive chart; second down and 10 or less to go, outside the opponent's 11 yard line.

YTG Y/A FD% YD/RSH FD% PLAYS FD%10 6.85 28% 4.64 13% 13728 21%9 6.67 30% 4.43 14% 4176 24%8 6.34 33% 4.46 17% 5326 27%7 6.86 39% 4.43 21% 5138 31%6 6.45 43% 4.26 25% 4468 34%5 6.97 50% 4.38 32% 4192 40%4 7.11 53% 4.40 40% 3314 46%3 6.36 57% 4.27 50% 2690 53%2 6.92 61% 4.19 64% 2311 63%1 6.91 60% 4.25 81% 2703 75%(Data do not include sacks, penalties, and probably some other edge cases).Some things to note:

Eliminating goal-line carries really makes a huge difference in the short-yardage results.
The most common scenario other than second and 10 is second and 8. Presumably the large majority of first-down plays resulting in second and 8 are running plays.
At second and 8, passing is at its least effective in terms of Y/A, and rushing is at its most effective. This does suggest that "defenses are playing pass".
Passing first down conversion percentage eventually is limited by completion percentage; in any second-down situation with 3 or more yards to go, passing gets a first down more often than rushing.
The biggest uptick for the offense is at second and 4; most first-down plays gaining 6 yards are probably pass plays.
At second and 6, the offense is quite poor in terms of combined Y/A; there's also a downtick in FD%. Neither passing nor rushing is particularly effective at this down and distance.The one thing I think I can say conclusively about this data is that offenses are not more effective at second-and-6, or for that matter at second-and-7-to-9.

 

[T Bell]

Isn't the simple answer "scarcity"? Each team produces fewer rushing yards than passing yards, so therefore each rushing yard (and the people who produce them, if we're talking about fantasy football) is worth more than each passing yard.

If that were true, that would make receiving yards by fullbacks really valuable.

Which they would be if FB was a separate position in FF, right?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Isn't the simple answer "scarcity"? Each team produces fewer rushing yards than passing yards, so therefore each rushing yard (and the people who produce them, if we're talking about fantasy football) is worth more than each passing yard.

If that were true, that would make receiving yards by fullbacks really valuable.

Which they would be if FB was a separate position in FF, right?

Not really. It would depend on your scoring system and starting lineup requirements, but it would be almost impossible to make the FB really valuable.But we're talking NFL here.

 

[T Bell]

Isn't the simple answer "scarcity"? Each team produces fewer rushing yards than passing yards, so therefore each rushing yard (and the people who produce them, if we're talking about fantasy football) is worth more than each passing yard.

If that were true, that would make receiving yards by fullbacks really valuable.

Which they would be if FB was a separate position in FF, right?

Not really. It would depend on your scoring system and starting lineup requirements, but it would be almost impossible to make the FB really valuable.But we're talking NFL here.

Fair enough. I was taking more of a fantasy angle.