Football Outsiders: Run on 3rd and Short - New England Patriots Forums

DropKickFlutie · 08-30-2010, 11:26 PM

Related to some recent discussion, just an interesting FYI if you've never seen this. Football Outsiders shows that running on 3rd and short is a much preferable option than passing it.

Quote:

On average, passing will always gain more yardage than running, with one very important exception: when a team is just one or two yards away from a new set of downs or the goal line. On third-and-1, a run will convert for a new set of downs 36 percent more often than a pass. Expand that to all third or fourth downs with 1-2 yards to go, and the run is successful 40 percent more often. With these percentages, the possibility of a long gain with a pass is not worth the tradeoff of an incomplete that kills a drive.
This is one reason why teams have to be able to both run and pass. The offense also has to keep some semblance of balance so they can use their play-action fakes, and so the defense doesn't just run their nickel and dime packages all game. Balance also means that teams do need to pass occasionally in short-yardage situations; they just need to do it less than they do now. Teams pass roughly 60 percent of the time on third-and-2 even though runs in that situation convert 20 percent more often than passes. They pass 68 percent of the time on fourth-and-2 even though runs in that situation convert twice as often as passes.
'Tis Better to Have Rushed and Lost Than Never to Have Rushed at All, January 2004
Pro Football Forecast 2004, Buffalo chapter
Pro Football Prospectus 2005, Detroit chapter

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | Football Outsiders Basics (a.k.a. "Pregame Show&quot

DropKickFlutie · 08-30-2010, 11:29 PM

Here is a different piece related to the Patriots, for why Law Firm may be a better RB choice than Maroney. A runner with lower variance in his runs is more valuable than a runner who is 'boom or bust'.

Quote:

If their overall yards per carry are equal, a running back who consistently gains yardage on every play is more valuable than a boom-and-bust running back who is frequently stuffed at the line but occasionally breaks a long highlight-worthy run.
Our brethren at Baseball Prospectus believe that the most precious commodity in baseball is outs. Teams only get 27 of them per game, and you can't afford to give one up for very little return. So imagine if there was a new rule in baseball that gave a team a way to earn another three outs in the middle of the inning. That would be pretty useful, right?
That's the way football works. You may start a drive 80 yards away from scoring, but as long as you can earn 10 yards in four chances, you get another four chances. Long gains have plenty of value, but if those long gains are mixed with a lot of short gains, you are going to put the quarterback in a lot of difficult third-and-long situations. That means more punts and more giving the ball back to the other team rather than moving the chains and giving the offense four more plays to work with.
The running back who gains consistent yardage is also going to do a lot more for you late in the game, when the goal of running the ball is not just to gain yardage but to eat clock time. If you are a Chicago Bears fan watching your team with a late lead, you don't want to see three straight Matt Forte stuffs at the line followed by a punt. You want to see a game-icing first down.

RayClay · 08-30-2010, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DropKickFlutie

Here is a different piece related to the Patriots, for why Law Firm may be a better RB choice than Maroney. A runner with lower variance in his runs is more valuable than a runner who is 'boom or bust'.

If their overall ypc are equal.....

pdangle · 08-31-2010, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DropKickFlutie

Here is a different piece related to the Patriots, for why Law Firm may be a better RB choice than Maroney. A runner with lower variance in his runs is more valuable than a runner who is 'boom or bust'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RayClay

If their overall ypc are equal.....

And if you call the same (or class of) runner 4 times per set, the variance will shrink considerably. But the original point stands for one play for short yardage, fo' sho'.

PatsFan37 · 08-31-2010, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DropKickFlutie

Here is a different piece related to the Patriots, for why Law Firm may be a better RB choice than Maroney. A runner with lower variance in his runs is more valuable than a runner who is 'boom or bust'.

Doesn't that make the assumption that statistically Law Firm had fewer negative yardage plays than Maroney?

I don't have the numbers but I thought I read that Maroney had fewer negative yardage plays last year than any of the other backs. If it weren't for his goal-line fumbles last year (yes, and other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln) he'd be the best short-yardage back on the team.

I have not given up on this guy.

CheeseMonkeys · 08-31-2010, 08:42 AM

I think there is a very good chance that Maroney will have his best year yet this season. He certainly has the physical talent to be a succesful RB.

Sicilian · 08-31-2010, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFan37

Doesn't that make the assumption that statistically Law Firm had fewer negative yardage plays than Maroney?

I don't have the numbers but I thought I read that Maroney had fewer negative yardage plays last year than any of the other backs. If it weren't for his goal-line fumbles last year (yes, and other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln) he'd be the best short-yardage back on the team.

I have not given up on this guy.

That's what I thought too. I feel like for every run where Maroney's shifty style causes him to miss a hole, there's another play where his elusiveness prevents a loss when there are three defenders already in the backfield.

People's problems with Maroney (pre-fumbling streak) have always been about aesthetic preference, not about results, whether they want to admit that or not.

JackBauer · 08-31-2010, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DropKickFlutie

Here is a different piece related to the Patriots, for why Law Firm may be a better RB choice than Maroney. A runner with lower variance in his runs is more valuable than a runner who is 'boom or bust'.

Maroney had the 2nd best success rate in 2007 and the 11th best in 2009.

Meanwhile, BJGE does have enough carries to chart his position, probably because the coaching staff feels he's best off playing against scrubs or in garbage time.

***patchick*** · 08-31-2010, 08:53 AM

I have to say, FO's analysis seems muddled here -- they're conflating two very different measures:

Quote:

On average, passing will always gain more yardage than running, with one very important exception: when a team is just one or two yards away from a new set of downs or the goal line. On third-and-1, a run will convert for a new set of downs 36 percent more often than a pass. Expand that to all third or fourth downs with 1-2 yards to go, and the run is successful 40 percent more often. With these percentages, the possibility of a long gain with a pass is not worth the tradeoff of an incomplete that kills a drive.

So guys, what is it you're measuring? Is it "gaining more yardage" or "converting to a new set of downs"? Those are totally different animals.

Surely you have a better chance of converting a 2nd-and-1 on the ground too, no? In which case there is no "exception" here. All you're saying is that passes result in a greater average yardage but a higher chance of zero yards. Which is the ultimate football platitude..

Off The Grid · 08-31-2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DropKickFlutie

Here is a different piece related to the Patriots, for why Law Firm may be a better RB choice than Maroney.

A runner with lower variance in his runs is more valuable than a runner who is 'boom or bust'.

That is an awfully good point, one I have preached excessively in my PrePatsFan.com days.

***

Whether you're talking about a QuarterBack, a RunningBack, a TightEnd, or a WideOut, it's the guys with Golden Arms and Great "40" Times who get you to the PlayOffs.

But it's the guys who bore the @#$%^&* out of you, but consistently Move the Chains...who win the PlayOffs.

Joe Montana > Dan Marino
Emmit Smith > Barry Sanders
Tom Brady >>> Peyton Manning