Interesting stat on Brown | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Interesting stat on Brown

colmax

colmax

Seasoned Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2004
Messages
924
Reaction score
0
Location
Downtown Gulfport
(Don't know if this has been posted, so apologies up front)

During his 24-game career with the Dolphins, Brown has been given 20 or more carries on just six occasions. The team won five of those games.

''That's an amazing stat right there,'' receiver Chris Chambers said. ``Well, I think we need to do that more often then.''

That strategy of running more, which would obviously deflate the number of passes thrown to Chambers, makes sense to the team's pass catcher for more than one reason. Aside from the obvious, Brown's increased production also causes a defense to ease up on pass coverage.
Click to expand...


Link: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/football/15939698.htm
 
I think 99.9% of the people on here could have told you that. What I mean is that we need to run and run and run. I think Sabans like 8-0 when we rush for X amount of yards but yeah good stat and thanks!
 
redpitsea said:
I think 99.9% of the people on here could have told you that. What I mean is that we need to run and run and run. I think Sabans like 8-0 when we rush for X amount of yards but yeah good stat and thanks!
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, totally. Most here do know that Miami should run, run, run. I just wanted to show (and justify for the Brown haters) how running him is effective.
 
First of all, thanks for the post, I totally agree that we need to continue to feed Brown the ball.

But isn't it obvious that this stat sort of redundant? I mean, this team is forced to abandon the run (to some degree) when they're losing a game. And, of course, they're more inclined to run the ball when leading...

In addition to that, of course you're more likely to run the ball when it's actually effective against a defense, and that hasn't necessarily been the case each and every week...

Yes -- we've lost games where the playcalling inexplicably avoided Brown (Buffalo). But, we've also lost games (Pittsburgh) where Brown averaged 2.0 yards per carry, and it's hard to justify 30+ touches in a game like that.

Forgive me for the obvious John Madden analysis, but those stats always baffle me. It's like saying the Dolphins have lost every game that they've trailed in the final two minutes. Well... okay...
 
It's not because he ran 20 times. It's because the team was in a situation where Brown was able to run 20 times. Mis-informed NFL fans see a stat like that and say "Give him the ball 20 times and we win". No, that is not the case. You are not winning because you ran the ball 20 times. You ran the ball 20 times because you are winning. A team can run the ball alot if they have the lead or are in a close game. You obviously are not going to run 20 times if you are down by 3 touchdowns.
 
Swerve said:
First of all, thanks for the post, I totally agree that we need to continue to feed Brown the ball.

But isn't it obvious that this stat sort of redundant? I mean, this team is forced to abandon the run (to some degree) when they're losing a game. And, of course, they're more inclined to run the ball when leading...

In addition to that, of course you're more likely to run the ball when it's actually effective against a defense, and that hasn't necessarily been the case each and every week...

Yes -- we've lost games where the playcalling inexplicably avoided Brown (Buffalo). But, we've also lost games (Pittsburgh) where Brown averaged 2.0 yards per carry, and it's hard to justify 30+ touches in a game like that.

Forgive me for the obvious John Madden analysis, but those stats always baffle me. It's like saying the Dolphins have lost every game that they've trailed in the final two minutes. Well... okay...
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
kmartin575 said:
It's not because he ran 20 times. It's because the team was in a situation where Brown was able to run 20 times. Mis-informed NFL fans see a stat like that and say "Give him the ball 20 times and we win". No, that is not the case. You are not winning because you ran the ball 20 times. You ran the ball 20 times because you are winning. A team can run the ball alot if they have the lead or are in a close game. You obviously are not going to run 20 times if you are down by 3 touchdowns.
Click to expand...

Win or lose there is really no excuse for a team that doesnt have a great QB to not run the ball close to 20 times. Unless of course you are getting blown out, but he arent getting blown out often enough for Brown to not be getting 20 carriers on a more consistant basis. I agree with you though that this is a misleading stat that shouldnt be read into that much.
 
Staticians and fans need to learn the difference between correlation and causation!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ronnie running a lot can be a cause for a win ... if he's running damn well.
But Ronnie running a lot can just be a correlation ... if we're already winning.

That's why you have to analyse each and every game, not look at a stat sheet and then go to the Win/Loss column and come to a conclusion. That excerpt makes it seem as if we feed Brown the ball no matter what we increase our chances to win.

Well what if he's getting stuffed? Still feed him the ball? Each position on the field is so damn intertwined it's not sufficient to proclaim 20+ carries = Wins. It's more complicated (run opens up the pass, pass opens up the run, etc.)
 
jdang307 said:
Staticians and fans need to learn the difference between correlation and causation!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ronnie running a lot can be a cause for a win ... if he's running damn well.
But Ronnie running a lot can just be a correlation ... if we're already winning.

That's why you have to analyse each and every game, not look at a stat sheet and then go to the Win/Loss column and come to a conclusion. That excerpt makes it seem as if we feed Brown the ball no matter what we increase our chances to win.

Well what if he's getting stuffed? Still feed him the ball? Each position on the field is so damn intertwined it's not sufficient to proclaim 20+ carries = Wins. It's more complicated (run opens up the pass, pass opens up the run, etc.)
Click to expand...


Actually, it is 'sufficient to proclaim' running Ronnie 20+ times equates to a win more likely than not. The stats prove it:

1. Times Ronnie Brown has run the ball 20+ times = 6
2. Times Miami has won during those games = 5

It's right there in black and white. Of course there are other militating factors, but one does not need a PhD in Quantum Mechanics to come to that conclusion.
 
kmartin575 said:
It's not because he ran 20 times. It's because the team was in a situation where Brown was able to run 20 times. Mis-informed NFL fans see a stat like that and say "Give him the ball 20 times and we win". No, that is not the case. You are not winning because you ran the ball 20 times. You ran the ball 20 times because you are winning. A team can run the ball alot if they have the lead or are in a close game. You obviously are not going to run 20 times if you are down by 3 touchdowns.
Click to expand...

I once ran Ronnie 34 times and was down by four touchdowns on Madden.

I just thought it was INTERESTING to see Ronnie's worth on this team. You are bashing the stat for no particular reason. It is what it is. Everyone here knows (or should know) the different factors involved. Does that make the stat irrelevant?? Absolutely not. It is very relevant.

There were GREAT running backs (ala Walter Payton, Barry Sanders) whose teams sucked the pine tar off of Batman's baseball bat (like that alliteration?). They ran the ball 20+ times, I'm sure. Did they always win? No. Yes, they had winning seasons, but Payton had to wait until the end of his career to get a Super Bowl. Not to dig into it any further, but I am just trying to point out the relevance of the stat in reference to Ronnie's impact to the team if he gets at least twenty carries (That last sentence was soooo Nick Saban). Does that always equal a win? It didn't in Barry Sanders' or Walter Payton's cases, but as of right now, it does in Ronnie Brown's case. But again....it's just a stat.
 
colmax said:
Actually, it is 'sufficient to proclaim' running Ronnie 20+ times equates to a win more likely than not. The stats prove it:

1. Times Ronnie Brown has run the ball 20+ times = 6
2. Times Miami has won during those games = 5

It's right there in black and white. Of course there are other militating factors, but one does not need a PhD in Quantum Mechanics to come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Depending on what you mean by "Equate" the stats prove a correlation, not a causation. Did you even read my post? Anyone take experimental procedures in college?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom