Misleading correlation between rushing attempts and win/loss..

[normaldude]

A lot of people like to quote stats about how if a team runs the ball a lot in a game, they will likely win. I think the most recent one being thrown around is that in games where Saban & Dolphins run the ball 30 times, they are undefeated.

However, that correlation between rushing attempts and win/loss percentage is ridiculously misleading. Teams that are leading tend to run a lot in an attempt to "run out the clock". And teams that are trailing tend to throw a lot in an attempt to catch up without burning up much time.

The result is the misleading "high rushing attempts equals high probability of winning" game stat.

 

[inFINSible]

A lot of people like to quote stats about how if a team runs the ball a lot in a game, they will likely win. I think the most recent one being thrown around is that in games where Saban & Dolphins run the ball 30 times, they are undefeated.

However, that correlation between rushing attempts and win/loss percentage is ridiculously misleading. Teams that are leading tend to run a lot in an attempt to "run out the clock". And teams that are trailing tend to throw a lot in an attempt to catch up without burning up much time.

The result is the misleading "high rushing attempts equals high probability of winning" game stat.

I believe you've got a "chicken or the egg" conundrum on your hands here.

Travis Henry had 8 rushes in the first quarter last week, that suggests that it's a pace set from the begining.

 

[FinNasty]

yes... but if the game is even kinda close (like within 10pts)... running the ball can control the clock and the game.

 

[arsenal]

its a little of both, we weren't blowing out the titans, yet continued to run and came out with the W... its jsut a way to keep the other offense off the field and give them less chances to score points... we haven't had many games in the last 2 years where we were dominating and were just running out the clock... yet that stat still rings true for us...

 

[zonk4ever]

I don't follow your logic. it seems like your contradicting yourself. The greatest dolphin teams (in the 70's) were prolific running teams. After the Dolphins beat the Vikings for their 2nd super bowl win, sports illustrated writers were disgusted with the boring, relentless running game and found its unstoppable results detrimental to the nfl. (that's a long time ago)

 

[FinNasty]

All I know... is that we are UNDEFEATED when Ronnie gets 20 carries....

And I dont think it is a coincidence...

 

[normaldude]

I don't follow your logic. it seems like your contradicting yourself. The greatest dolphin teams (in the 70's) were prolific running teams. After the Dolphins beat the Vikings for their 2nd super bowl win, sports illustrated writers were disgusted with the boring, relentless running game and found its unstoppable results detrimental to the nfl. (that's a long time ago)

No, that's a completely different topic. I'm talking about the stat that people quote where if a given team rushes more than X number of times in a game, they have X winning percentage. And when that exact same team rushes less than Y number of times in a game, they have Y winning percentage.

 

[normaldude]

All I know... is that we are UNDEFEATED when Ronnie gets 20 carries....

And I dont think it is a coincidence...

Under that faulty logic, then since most people who drive a Rolls Royce are rich, then you should drive a Rolls Royce because it will make you rich.

But of course, that's absurd. The causation is that people become rich, and then they buy the Rolls Royce because they have the money to burn. Same with a NFL team having the lead, and thus running the ball a lot late in the game in order to run out the clock.

 

[fin1]

its a little of both, we weren't blowing out the titans, yet continued to run and came out with the W... its jsut a way to keep the other offense off the field and give them less chances to score points... we haven't had many games in the last 2 years where we were dominating and were just running out the clock... yet that stat still rings true for us...

I agreee with you to a point. The bills in the 90's would run to keep Marino and company off the field. It seemed they were never able to get in rhythm on offense. The jaguars just tried the same thing to Indy and it didn't work even though they rushed for an inordinate amount of time. I think their time of possession was like 15 min to 3 at one point. Most of the time it works that way though. I would rather have a little bit of Wanny ball and control the clock than let Cpep throw an int.

 

[rainmaker1313]

A lot of people like to quote stats about how if a team runs the ball a lot in a game, they will likely win. I think the most recent one being thrown around is that in games where Saban & Dolphins run the ball 30 times, they are undefeated.

However, that correlation between rushing attempts and win/loss percentage is ridiculously misleading. Teams that are leading tend to run a lot in an attempt to "run out the clock". And teams that are trailing tend to throw a lot in an attempt to catch up without burning up much time.

The result is the misleading "high rushing attempts equals high probability of winning" game stat.

So all that means then is the team has the lead and keeping it on the ground preserves leads which still means Running the Ball = Wins!

 

[Aussiefinfan54]

yeah i agree you rarely see teams in the fourth quater and particularly at the end of the 4th throw the football. most of the times they just pound the rock and eat up time to secure the win.

 

[Pocoloco]

yeah, there's definately some sort of logical circle going on there. If you are really serious about running out the clock at the end of the game, you probably run 90% of the time, while you start out (ideally) somewhere around 50% or 60%.