Why Passing Beats Running

[SlowGettingUp]

This quote from 538 about sums it up:

Basically, there is pretty much no ordinary situation in which running produces better results than passing.
​

Of course even in situations where passing dominates running, you still need to run some percentage of the time for game-theoretic reasons. Basically you have to keep the defense guessing and have to keep them from always going with a light box.

The main consequence of this is that RBs have been clearly devalued over time. Percentage of total salary to RBs has been heading steadily downward.

This year the Pats have more hybrid RBs that can also catch - that for me was the big problem with Blount - he signalled a run. But the Pats also seem to use RBs near the goal line more than most other teams, so we do need a strong short-yardage back.

Full article here:
Running Backs Are Finally Getting Paid What They’re Worth

 

[convertedpatsfan]

This makes a lot of sense. Though I know one person who would strongly disagree with you...

 

[RayClay]

Except when you stop running and defenses rush all out every play and destroy the quarterback, or when you want to run the clock or you have a lead and want to tire the defense...

 

[RayClay]

Can't really play the game on a spreadsheet.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Can't really play the game on a spreadsheet.

Agree. Clearly from a statistical standpoint it's silly to run.

But if your QB is getting killed by the blitz or it's a muddy mess then stats are irrelevent when situations and opportunity dictate plays

 

[RayClay]

Agree. Clearly from a statistical standpoint it's silly to run.

But if your QB is getting killed by the blitz or it's a muddy mess then stats are irrelevent when situations and opportunity dictate plays

It's like saying drinking beats eating. Imagine if Pats played Colts in important games and refused to run. They could very well lose, playing the other guys game. By exploiting the softness of that team, even a jag like Jonas Gray beat them up and stopped them from having a serious chance to come back.

Statistics are wonderful things in context.

 

[RayClay]

Of course a great back who is also a great receiver is the best, but they cost a lot of money for a team who's game plan could be almost 100% pass in a given week. I liked their RB committee with Blount, especially if Lewis had been healthy. Damn good value to have a hammer like that when needed and 2 scat backs to complement passing game. Curious to see how current lineup will perform.

 

[rookBoston]

Ironic that Seattle and Atlanta are both criticized for throwing late in the SB, when ball control and clock killing would have sewed it up for them.

I don't know what to do with a study like this. If you believed the findings and decided to throw 100% of the time, the opposing D would sell out the run to scheme the pass away from you, and you'd lose for sure.

 

[Kontradiction]

Except when you stop running and defenses rush all out every play and destroy the quarterback, or when you want to run the clock or you have a lead and want to tire the defense...

So did you just not read the actual words under the fancy chart or did you outright ignore them? The OP says there are situations where you have to run and outright specifies that.

 

[Nehalem]

I think this is an issue of abusing statistics.

Consider the title "Average Win Percentage added for rushing and passing plays on 1st and 2nd downs with 5-10 yards to go."

(1) Pretending 3rd down doesn't exist seems rather problematic to me.
(2) Also lumps for example 2-5 and 2-10 together. It seems pretty clear to me even without statistical analysis that running on 2-10 is much less likely to lead to a good outcome than running on 2-5.
(3) In some sense this is a pre-determined result. Any given pass play is likely to have a bigger result than any given running play, and therefore likely to have a bigger WPA I would assume.

Then looking at the pretty graph I think the bubbles are misleading. Consider the 2 large bubbles for passing and running for the 1st quarter tied score. According to the bubbles no play will ever produce a negative WPA. This is clearly false and a result of statistical massaging. Which really makes it impossible to draw any conclusion from the graph.

 

[maineman209]

This year the Pats have more hybrid RBs that can also catch - that for me was the big problem with Blount - he signalled a run.

Obviously, this will change dramatically with Gillislee as the lead rusher ...

2015-16 seasons:
Blount = 13/15 tgts, 81 yards, 1 TD
Gillislee = 15/18 tgts, 79 yds, 1 TD (also his total career stats)

 

[maineman209]

Ironic that Seattle and Atlanta are both criticized for throwing late in the SB, when ball control and clock killing would have sewed it up for them.

I don't know what to do with a study like this. If you believed the findings and decided to throw 100% of the time, the opposing D would sell out the run to scheme the pass away from you, and you'd lose for sure.

IIRC, the Pats defense was holding the ATL running game to under 2 yards/carry in the 2nd half.

 

[Nehalem]

Obviously, this will change dramatically with Gillislee as the lead rusher ...

2015-16 seasons:
Blount = 13/15 tgts, 81 yards, 1 TD
Gillislee = 15/18 tgts, 79 yds, 1 TD (also his total career stats)

And in the same time
Blount = 464 carries, 30.9 carries per receiving target
Gillislee = 148 carries, 8.2 carries per receiving target

So Gillislee is more than 3x as likely to be targeted in the passing game per carry than Blount.

And you are forgetting Burkhead as well.
87 career rushes, 45 receiving targets. 1.93 carries per target. Over 15x as likely to be targeted per carry as blount.

 

[maineman209]

It's like saying drinking beats eating.

Wait! It doesn't?!

 

[BTTA]

If you read the study and chew on it a bit, you'll see that all of the situational factors mentioned above are taken into consideration. The authors are as surprised as anyone else at the outcome.

 

[Nehalem]

If you read the study and chew on it a bit, you'll see that all of the situational factors mentioned above are taken into consideration. The authors are as surprised as anyone else at the outcome.

Why is the outcome surprising?

A good QB will average 7.x yards/attempt.
A good RB will average 4.x yards/attempt.

It seems obvious that gaining an extra 3 yards an attempt will lead to a better chance of winning.

And this is especially true when you draw little bubbles that pretty obviously are throwing out the best and worst results. Considering that 60%+ of passes are completed if the bubble represents all plays within say 1 Standard deviation of the mean result you are probably throwing out all interceptions and a good percentage of incompletions (yes yes, also obviously 50 yard tds as well).

So really is it a surprise that neglecting interceptions and incompletions that passing is better than rushing?

 

[jah]

Ironic that Seattle and Atlanta are both criticized for throwing late in the SB, when ball control and clock killing would have sewed it up for them.

I don't know what to do with a study like this. If you believed the findings and decided to throw 100% of the time, the opposing D would sell out the run to scheme the pass away from you, and you'd lose for sure.

This is exactly how not to interpret statistics. Any time you take stats into consideration when making a decision, you have to always put it in the greater context of your situation. No one who truly "gets it" would just blindly follow whatever the "conclusion" of a study said.

 

[jah]

I think this is an issue of abusing statistics.

Consider the title "Average Win Percentage added for rushing and passing plays on 1st and 2nd downs with 5-10 yards to go."

(1) Pretending 3rd down doesn't exist seems rather problematic to me.
(2) Also lumps for example 2-5 and 2-10 together. It seems pretty clear to me even without statistical analysis that running on 2-10 is much less likely to lead to a good outcome than running on 2-5.
(3) In some sense this is a pre-determined result. Any given pass play is likely to have a bigger result than any given running play, and therefore likely to have a bigger WPA I would assume.

Then looking at the pretty graph I think the bubbles are misleading. Consider the 2 large bubbles for passing and running for the 1st quarter tied score. According to the bubbles no play will ever produce a negative WPA. This is clearly false and a result of statistical massaging. Which really makes it impossible to draw any conclusion from the graph.

I think this is a good critique of the methods. However, I think (3) is exactly why the result is what it is and why the result makes sense. It's not something to discount because it's rooted in reality. You do get more yards on average passing, so provided you keep the conditions of the game such that you don't lower your chances of pass success (this is why you still run the ball), you want to do it on average more often than running.

 

[Simpelton]

So at the end of the day this study means nothing. Teams that are great at passing will still predominately pass, teams stacked for the run will ignore the study and run because that's what the team is built to do, and teams that are stuck between are going to suck either way.

 

[EddardSnow67]

Whether you think the method is flawed or not, NFL front offices have clearly come to the same conclusion, regardless of the method.