nyashfan
For Earth Below
Up 17 and he calls 3 consecutive pass plays. This is the Shouright Statistic in action. Run the %$#@& ball!!! What a moron Sherman is.
Sherman In A Nutshell
- Thread starter nyashfan
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Messages
- 30,290
- Reaction score
- 16,056
It is surprising to me that this team just does not run the ball more when it is somewhat effective. It's obvious that today we are doing a better job running the football -- stick with it.
I can understand getting away from the run when we are being hit in the backfield on every play, but that is clearly not the case today.
I can understand getting away from the run when we are being hit in the backfield on every play, but that is clearly not the case today.
We look so much better when run plays from under center. Both run and pass plays. Tannehill looks very dangerous on play action. Drives me crazy that Sherman does not use it more often and opts for empty backfield sets which are much lower percentage
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Messages
- 30,290
- Reaction score
- 16,056
Irrational fear of bootlegs as well. You have a QB who is very athletic and throws extremely, extremely well on the run and is excellent at executing bootleg plays. Yet you never call them in 3rd and short or goal line situations?
nyashfan
For Earth Below
Plus that first pass play was a dangerous lateral swing pass to Wallace. It risked an interception, perhaps even a pick-six and allowed the defender to push him out-of-bounds, thus unnecessarily stopping the clock.
I noticed that as well, and I think part of the problem with that as well is that when you have a three-and-out on the basis of three passing plays in that sort of situation, it translates to a bit of a momentum shift for the team down on the scoreboard, because they're able to get the ball back with little time having been taken off the clock. It's as if you breathe a bit a life into them by giving them exactly what they need to feel like they have a fighting chance in the game -- a defensive stop with minimal time taken off the clock.
Compare that with a three-and-out on the basis of three running plays, in which a great deal more time would be taken off the clock, and/or the attainment of even one first down, which would do the same.
You have to run the ball there because you don't know you're going to get the first down to wind down clock, whereas you do know you can wind it down with running plays. At that point you've minimized the sort of momentum shift I'm talking about here.
Compare that with a three-and-out on the basis of three running plays, in which a great deal more time would be taken off the clock, and/or the attainment of even one first down, which would do the same.
You have to run the ball there because you don't know you're going to get the first down to wind down clock, whereas you do know you can wind it down with running plays. At that point you've minimized the sort of momentum shift I'm talking about here.
nyashfan
For Earth Below
Shouright, this box score will look almost identical to the Cleveland one, in terms of turnover differential, 3rd down conversion differential and rushing attempt differential. Here, the Dolphins also outgained the opponent in rushing yardage, perhaps accentuating the Dolphins' dominance.
So let's ask the same question - which statistic is the cause and which is the effect!?
So let's ask the same question - which statistic is the cause and which is the effect!?
Among which ones?
Keep in mind that the Jets (4.5 YPC) actually had a good bit better success running the ball than the Dolphins (3.5 YPC) in this game.
nyashfan
For Earth Below
Among the ones I listed!
Turnover differential
3rd down conversion percentage differential
Rushing attempt differential
Turnover differential
3rd down conversion percentage differential
Rushing attempt differential
I think what's probably causal in terms of success is a positive differential in passing efficiency (i.e., YPA), coupled with offensive balance in terms of rushing attempts, regardless of the level of rushing success. I suspect third down conversion differential is a mediator, but is highly unlikely to be present in the unfavorable direction when the causal variables are favorable.
Turnovers are a virtually completely random wildcard in my opinion. All bets are off on the other variables when turnover differential is extreme.
Its alright, he is stamping his ticket out of here hopefully with every play he calls
nyashfan
For Earth Below
The Jets had a higher rushing YPC, but the "eyeball" test says that the Dolphins ran more successfully. Why? Because the Jets YPC were inflated by a large run by Ivory and one by Powell, I believe. That translates to a right-tailed distribution of runs that is equivalent to a large positive skewness. This was my crazy idea that an average YPC based on a large positive skewness needs to be discounted. Just a crazy theory at this point...
I would think the only reason you wouldn't include those runs in a definition of running game "success," however, is if it could also be shown that they were largely random. If you can expect those runs every so often, I don't think you should exclude them from a definition of success.
nyashfan
For Earth Below
Then it suggests that rushing attempt differential is correlated to winning because, all things being equal, more rushing attempts implies more rushing yardage. So today the Dolphins won the battle in rushing attempts and rushing yardage. Both must be more predictive than rushing YPC.
Is the correlation between rushing attempt differential and win percentage dramatically larger than rushing yardage differential and win percentage?
The reason skewness intrigues me is that it shows that the Jets' success rate when rushing was low. They might have had only 2 impact running plays. They weren't controlling the game with their running. It's an alternative way of measuring success rate. What if a team had 9 runs of minus 5 and one run of 95? Is that better than 10 runs of plus 5 yards? I think I'd prefer the latter by far. Perhaps just looking at the median YPC instead of the mean YPC is sufficient.
Is the correlation between rushing attempt differential and win percentage dramatically larger than rushing yardage differential and win percentage?
The reason skewness intrigues me is that it shows that the Jets' success rate when rushing was low. They might have had only 2 impact running plays. They weren't controlling the game with their running. It's an alternative way of measuring success rate. What if a team had 9 runs of minus 5 and one run of 95? Is that better than 10 runs of plus 5 yards? I think I'd prefer the latter by far. Perhaps just looking at the median YPC instead of the mean YPC is sufficient.
Last edited by a moderator: