Football Outsiders: Run on 3rd and Short

[DropKickFlutie]

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.

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]

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 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]

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]

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.....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

 

[patchick]

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

But in his prime, Emmitt was routinely pulling in 50+ catches a year, too. He was no "3 yards and a cloud of dust" guy -- you had to fully honor the RB position in all of its facets when he was in the game.

For all that Maroney drives people crazy, he's a much more well-rounded threat than Green-Ellis. If you were a DC, wouldn't you be much happier scheming against Law Firm?

 

[emoney_33]

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 actually explains why Maroney is better than you want to give him credit for because his success rate has always been high.

Even more interesting is that the Patriots OL ranked #2 for fewest stuffs in the league last year. I've heard a lot of people claim that Maroney always gets stuffed at or behind the LOS, yet the statistics do not agree.

FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2009 OFFENSIVE LINES

It looks like the one thing we really need more of is 10+ yard runs.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

I agree with the previous poster that on 3rd and short, Tom Brady should be under center. The defense will be thinking and looking for run first, so the offense should at least pretend that is what it is going to be, even if we are passing it.

 

[Deus Irae]

In 2009:

On 3rd and less than 6, Brady was 37 for 62.

On 3rd and less than 3, Brady was 11 for 16.

On 4th and less than 6, Brady was 3 for 5.

On 4th and less than 3, Brady was 2 for 3.


In 2007

On 3rd and less than 6, Brady was 40 for 58.

On 3rd and less than 3, Brady was 12 for 15.

On 4th and less than 6, Brady was 4 for 6.

On 4th and less than 3, Brady was 4 for 4.


As I've noted over the years here, I'm a fan of running first and passing second. However, having a guy like Brady taking the snaps changes the equation, and that's especially true when you also toss in a safety valve the likes of Kevin Faulk.

 

[Triumph]

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.

Its about results - yards.

I really dont care if Maroney runs around in circles as long as he picks up yards.

 

[emoney_33]

Its about results - yards.

I really dont care if Maroney runs around in circles as long as he picks up yards.

Which he does, as evidenced by his success rate and the Patriots ranked #2 in fewest runs of negative or 0 yards last year.

 

[Off The Grid]

But in his prime, Emmitt was routinely pulling in 50+ catches a year, too. He was no "3 yards and a cloud of dust" guy -- you had to fully honor the RB position in all of its facets when he was in the game.

For all that Maroney drives people crazy, he's a much more well-rounded threat than Green-Ellis. If you were a DC, wouldn't you be much happier scheming against Law Firm?

Very good Argument, and yes, I probably would.

But if I were Coach Belichick, I would want neither.

I should explain that I meant to praise the preceding Argument, not Green, himself.

If it was up to me, I would've traded both of them before the draft ~ I don't know if Green would've fetched anything, mind you ~ and drafted Deji Karim ~ who is currently injured, I'm sorry to say ~ and scooped up UFA Joique Bell, to go with the Jurassic Boys, who of course offered no trade value.

 

[captain stone]

In either case, whether they run, or pass, on third and short, the key is to get the hell out of the shotgun and go under center. It gives the offense way more options and also gives defenses more guesswork as to what is coming, run, pass, play action or even quarterback keeper.

Going into the spread, as they have done, puts the advantage on the other side of the line of scrimmage, with opposing defenses.

I completely, unequivocally agree.

I detest the shotgun - and most esp. the empty backfield - formation, exc. in the case of obvious passing (incl. 2-min, catch-up, etc.) situations.

 

[patchick]

Sure, there IS an exception....

Would you agree that on 2nd and 1, that would be an excellent time for using play action, from under center, as the consensus would be by defenses is that you are going to run the ball because if you dont get it, you always have another crack at it on 3rd down?

This wasn't a question of strategy and deceptive play-calling, but just whether FO's statistical analysis is sound. They claim to have found a situation that's a statistical "exception," and they haven't.

The average yardage gained on 3rd & 1 will be greater for a pass than a run. Thus, 3rd & 1 is NOT an exception to any rule about pass plays averaging greater yardage than run plays. Similarly, a running play will be more likely to produce 2+ yards on 2nd & 10 than a pass play.

What changes on 3 & 1 is the tactical value of a 2-yard gain vs. an 8-yard gain vs. a 0-yard gain.

Which is the most basic strategic insight imaginable: 1 yard matters more on 3rd & 1 than on 2nd & 10! Wow!

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Here is what I see when I study Maroney.
-When there is an open hole he hits it
-When the hole is not there, he hesitates, trying to find a cut back lane
Probably 3 times out of 4 the cutback lane is not there. In those cases instead of having a RB who runs into the pile and gets nothing you have a RB who looks indecisive to the untrined eye, and gets nothing.
In terms of being effective as a RB Maroney style as described above helps him on the 1 in 4 where the cutback creates yards and has pretty much no impact on the other 3 of 4. In terms of how fans perceive him, the way he gets nothng when there is nothing to get is an exteemely imprtant factor. In fact, the way he gets nothing compared to gettng nothing a different way is the reason why he is villified by many fans.

The facts that we are a passing offense, that BB prefers to limit the carries of any 1 RB, and that Maroney has had 1 serious and a couple of minor injuries take the ignorant approach that his running style is flawed and back it up with the lack of stats that their was no prayer of achieving on this team.

In the end, I expect Maroney to have a good season, yet fans to still complain because there are plays that aren't blocked well, and he won't get the 300+ carries that would keep those who anlyze from a stat sheet happy.