|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 5, 2006 11:42:52 GMT -6
Let me run something by you guys. As I said in some of the other threads I've been starting today, I look heavily at yards per attempt for both runs and passes. I think that, as Dan Henning says, you should have a kind of "base" run/pass balance you go for, while on gameday and in certain situations it will depend on your kids and what the defense is doing. If the D ran a 1 man line and put everyone else back at 10 yards, I'd hope even the most diehard Airraid gunner would run the ball more.
How good you are at running or passing by trade is what you focus on. So the raw times you run or pass can be wildly different. However, one way, I think, to measure balance is to compare your yards per rushing attempt and yards per passing attempt. If you're in correct balance, these numbers should be roughly equal, even if you're a much better running than passing team. Why? Because the better you are at passing the more the defense knows it. The better you are at running, and the more you run, the defense knows it also, and adjusts accordingly, thus making it weaker against the pass.
So the idea is if you are a very good passing team you pass most of the time, then run when it is favorable and see positive results without having had to practice it too much. Same goes vice-versa--we all know how dangerous play action is from veer-teams.
I don't think the two should be exactly equal--passes are riskier than running plays. Specifically, they more often result in lost yardage (sacks) and turn the ball over more often (both fumbles and interceptions). So you should expect your yards per pass attempt to be higher than yards per rushing attempt.
The point of this is that you can hang your hat on one thing, but you might be leaving production on the table by not running or passing enough.
To show some examples I pulled some very simple stats off espn.com. Since college football puts sack yardage in the run column, I moved the QB's rushing numbers over to the passing side (most problemmatic with Florida since Meyer's system requires his QB to run, but Leak was not as proficient and did not run as much as Meyer's other QBs so I think it works out ok. I semi-randomly chose Texas Tech and the Florida Gators, darlings of this site, and then very randomly chose the Minnesota Gophers, since they are run focused and played in the Big 10.
Texas Tech attempted (remember, combiningQB numbers) 697 passes for 4857 yards, averaging 6.97 yards per pass attempt. (I also recognize how many of these are shovels and the like but I'm just being simplistic).
They ran the ball 172 times for 1040 yards, or 6.05 per rushing attempt.
So we compare 6.97 per pass to 6.05 per rush. We can imagine if they passed a bit more, that yards per rush total would have gone down. Regardless, putting the two together the average yards per play is 6.77. We can see you can make an argument that they should have passed MORE, since that would have raised their average yards per play, but a passing premium of about a yard seems about consistent with most other teams.
The result? Tech, for all its crazy stuff, is pretty *balanced.*
Next I looked at the Florida Gators (These might be the least accurate because of Chris Leak's rushing numbers but it's fine for this post). They got 2801 yards on 490 passing attemts (5.72 average) and 1680 yards rushing on 350 attempts (4.71). Together, the total yards per play was 5.33. Again we see about a yard of "passing premium" indicating that Urban was pretty balanced but that his team was not as productive, on a per play and total basis, as Tech (competition plays a difference, and it's the first year in Meyer's system, all that stuff plays a factor).
Let's say next year the passing game stays the same but the running game improves by a full yard per play. Now, what happens? Well, first Meyer will run the ball more--less risky, same reward. But then the defense will see this and begin to step up to stop the run, and drive the average yards per run back DOWN. Yet, they will be weaker to the pass. The result?
Counterintuitively, the passing game yards per attempt could go up by more than a yard, and Meyer should then actually pass MORE. Surprised? Just think about it: If the D had to do more to stop the run, the pass gets more attractive, so Florida starts getting maybe 6.7 or 7+ per play every time they throw it, so of course they are going to throw it, even if in absolute terms, it was the run game, not the pass game that improved. Regardless, the improvement in the run game should affect the entire offense's production, which is what is important.
The lesson? If your passing game is suddenly working better, it might not be because you are suddenly Bill Walsh. It might be because you've got a stud running back everyone wants to stop.
Finally, let's look at the Gophers: They ran it 586 times for 3247 yards (5.54), and threw it 347 times for 2690 yards (7.75).
That's the biggest passing premium we've seen, over 2.25 yards. So unless Minnesota is extremely risk averse, it appears that the Gophers should have passed more than they did. This result makes sense with what we said above: Minnesota had one of the best backs in the country, Maroney, and another guy who got 1000 yards. Their QB, some guy named Cupito, I didn't even remember. But defenses and defensive coordinators know the same thing. They were all geared to stop Maroney and the Gophers zone run game.
Should they have gone pass happy? No, but say they had thrown 50 more passes instead of runs. While the yards per pass attempt would have gone down, I don't imagine they would have gone down to less than 6 yards like the rushing average. Also, yards per rush would have probably gone up as well.
The fact is that Minnesota's strength was definitely running the ball, but everyone else knew it too: Minnesota could have seen some easy success in the passing game and helped out their offense in total by throwing a bit more.
Now this was all just for discussion. I'm not specifically hammering those coaches. I just used the stats on espn.com which includes all kinds of 3rd down and other stats that don't help, I don't know about first downs, etc. Let me know what you guys think about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jul 5, 2006 12:02:21 GMT -6
I played from the time I was 10, all the way to 2 years at QB in college. I always loved to pass, but as a coach, I look to try and run the ball AT LEAST 60% of the time. This can change from game to game.
Couple years ago we played a DL that AVERAGED 6'5" 310 (the 3 DL in a 3-4 team). We went shotgun and passed 70% that game. Forced those big guys to chase the QB rather than have our RB's running into them.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenbear76 on Jul 5, 2006 12:50:00 GMT -6
I'm the type of coach that pretty much likes a balanced offense.............in NAME ONLY. If I can run the ball 99% of the time successfully i'm gonna probably do it. I think defensive alignments dictate how 'balanced' your going to be on offense. If a team is sitting with 9 in the box, I'm gonna be more pass oriented..thats just the way it is. Sure i'll try to throw a counter in there every once in awhile..but if you are truely a balanced team..you can burn teams who try to overload a box to stop your running game. This is also vice versa..if your pass oriented and a team puts 7 guys into coverage..you better be able to run a bit on em .
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 5, 2006 13:13:47 GMT -6
Just as a quick addendum, I was playing with some numbers and I did the same analysis for the USC Trojans and Texas Longhorns.
USC:
523 passes for 4193 yards = 7.88 yards per pass attempt
474 rushes for 3344 yards = 7.06 per rush attempt
This indicates that USC, no surprise, was very balanced and efficient in its playcalling. Maybe they should have run a bit more since that "passing premium" was kind of low, but USC is also a very efficient passing team and they do not turn the ball over very much, so they can have a smaller passing premium and get away with it.
However, the stat that jumped at me was 1740/200 = 8.7. As in 8.7 yards per rushing attempt, as in Reggie Bush's yards per rushing attempt. As in, handing the ball off to Reggie Bush had a greater expected gain than did throwing the football, which is just unheard of. This implies that USC should have handed it to him more. Now there are other issues, like durability, and Reggie's receiving prowess, but that is such a substantial number you will not see anything like that.
Texas's stats were interesting too.
336 passes for 3083 yards = 9.18 yards per pass attempt
605 rushes for 3574 yards = 5.9 per rush attempt
That's a huge discrepency--remember we looked at Minnesota earlier. The different with Texas is that Texas was involved in a lot of blowouts and probably ran the ball much more in the second half, skewing the numbers. Nevertheless, coupled with the fact that Vince Young was the nation's passing efficiency leader, this implies that Texas probably held Vince's hand to much and should have let him throw more (or he should have stayed in the pocket and thrown more). Especially since as a runner Young averaged nearly 7 yards a carry, better than all but one of Texas' running backs. This exceptionally high passing yards per attempt number is probably also correlated with Vince's running ability--the D had to take men out of position to spy him on pass plays (also that my stats are not all that helpful, since when he got in trouble Matt Leinart would throw it away while Vince Young would take off for a positive gain. Even still, Texas probably could have thrown 200 more times than they did even if Vince ran on half of them, since his yards per rush was about a yard higher than the team average, and that's including sacks).
Stuff like this continues to fuel my belief that Vince Young will be better than Vick (crappy comparison, I know) but Young's passing efficiency number, his accuracy (65% is 15 points better than Vick accomplished in college, as best as I can remember) and his running ability will not diminish too greatly in the Pros.
Anyway, just to reiterate, my point with this kind of thinking which I admit here is a bit simplistic, is typically a fan or coach looks at numbers like 9 yards per pass and 6 yards per rush and says "well, you don't run it as well you throw it" whereas I think the response should be "you ran it too much" or "you didn't throw the ball enough." That's a very different approach.
I remember someone asking Hal Mumme when he was at Kentucky about how his teams yards per carry had dropped around a yard or so from the season before and the reporter was incredulous that he answered that really, he needed to pass more to run better. The reporter cut him off and essentially called him an idiot, and that everyone knows you run better by simply running more (wear them down!!!!) but I'm pretty his point is that he coached a passing team, and if his yards per carry was going down, at least one reason was that the defense was spending too much time on the run and that he, as playcaller, was not taking advantage of passing game weaknesses the defenses were leaving open.
|
|
|
|
Post by pegleg on Jul 5, 2006 15:08:16 GMT -6
that analysis is great. my opinion has always been that per carry/per attempt is much more imprtant and accurate than raw data. i also like your thought that it helps say what should we have done more of, run or pass. just because you are a passing team doesn't mean you can't run as shown by tech's 6 yard per carry. just means maybe they were better at running it than even they thought they were. and when comparing to defensive structure, maybe they should have run more.
thats really cool stuff and excellent food for thought. thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 5, 2006 15:23:48 GMT -6
this is great information and analysis.....too much for me to take in at one sitting, but great for discussion - I hope to be able to add something later.
but as Devil's Advocate, I'd say....
I think this data can be used to back up a viewpoint, but without knowing what happened, it is difficult to make basic assumptions....for instance, Minnesota had a monster run game and the "passing game" was built off play-action boots...which is directly tied to the run game, directly inter-related to the Gophers effectiveness running the ball....passing more doesn't directly relate to more passing efficiency, and might have a converse effect of improving the running game (?).
|
|
|
|
Post by djwesp on Jul 5, 2006 15:43:20 GMT -6
You could just run the ball 3back 2 tight... and average only 3.34 yards per carry and still win... without passing...
(points fingers at conference we play in)
|
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Jul 5, 2006 16:03:56 GMT -6
You could just run the ball 3back 2 tight... and average only 3.34 yards per carry and still win... without passing... (points fingers at conference we play in) 3.34 yards a carry is a first down every 3 plays. You would NEVER have to punt (theoretically that is! :  |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 5, 2006 17:19:05 GMT -6
Just bouncing back ideas for the sake of discussion. Thanks for the kind words. On the 3.34 yards per play, you'd have to (a) not have any penalties, missed handoffs, etc that would result in a loss and (b) always get at minimum 3.34, as even 3.30 (bad spot anyone?) would give you no first down. Of course I know we're just talking in the abstract, but 3.34 yards might not be so guaranteed if all eleven defenders are crowding the LOS.
brophy: just for the sake of discussion: The point is not so much that they should flip-flop or be a passing team, it's that they probably had pretty close to the right balance, but could have passed a bit more and defenses would still have been looking for Maroney etc. It's kind of the difference between throwing say 22 and 24 or 25 passes a game--not enough for the defense to where your bootlegs and play action no longer works, but you end up converting several more first downs or scoring maybe 3 more points. In a conference like the Big 10 3 points here or there can be the difference between the BCS and the Music City Bowl.
It's not an exact science, but the idea being just how much can you get away with? Chances are if Cupito throws a few more bootlegs and quick passes, at which the stats say he was actually quite proficient at against the run-oriented defenses he was seeing, the D is not going to do an about face and stop respecting the run with Maroney is still sitting in the backfield. If the Gophers switched, or even ran and passed in equal amounts those boots and action passes probably would not work as well, and the yards per carry would likely go up to a point that showed that they should be running more.
Just some ideas. Love the discussion
|
|
|
|
Post by sls on Jul 5, 2006 18:18:33 GMT -6
Great info spreadattack.
That is a stat I am going to look at this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by djwesp on Jul 6, 2006 15:40:41 GMT -6
Just bouncing back ideas for the sake of discussion. Thanks for the kind words. On the 3.34 yards per play, you'd have to (a) not have any penalties, missed handoffs, etc that would result in a loss and (b) always get at minimum 3.34, as even 3.30 (bad spot anyone?) would give you no first down. Of course I know we're just talking in the abstract, but 3.34 yards might not be so guaranteed if all eleven defenders are crowding the LOS. brophy: just for the sake of discussion: The point is not so much that they should flip-flop or be a passing team, it's that they probably had pretty close to the right balance, but could have passed a bit more and defenses would still have been looking for Maroney etc. It's kind of the difference between throwing say 22 and 24 or 25 passes a game--not enough for the defense to where your bootlegs and play action no longer works, but you end up converting several more first downs or scoring maybe 3 more points. In a conference like the Big 10 3 points here or there can be the difference between the BCS and the Music City Bowl. It's not an exact science, but the idea being just how much can you get away with? Chances are if Cupito throws a few more bootlegs and quick passes, at which the stats say he was actually quite proficient at against the run-oriented defenses he was seeing, the D is not going to do an about face and stop respecting the run with Maroney is still sitting in the backfield. If the Gophers switched, or even ran and passed in equal amounts those boots and action passes probably would not work as well, and the yards per carry would likely go up to a point that showed that they should be running more. Just some ideas. Love the discussion I agree completely. But the logic I am trying to express is that a lot of coaches feel the risk of passing outweighs the gift of balance. Whereas most of the teams we play are trying to burn the clock, each pass risks the time stopping, risks an interception, or risks your qb getting hurt. Although I do not agree with the logic, I think it is of note to know both sides to the argument. 3.34 was just an average that yields no punts, but my argument is that a lower rushing average, can still yield effectiveness. |
|
|
|
Post by jonnyboy on Jul 6, 2006 16:28:07 GMT -6
in a perfect world...we want to be 50/50 on 1st down calls...maintain a normal down and distance on 2nd and 3rd down, take homerun shots on 2nd and 2 or less.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 6, 2006 17:07:16 GMT -6
Must bear in mind that NCAA statistics include sacks in rushing totals. For analytical purposes they should be included in passing totals.
They also do not take into consideration plays where a pass was called, but the QB ran for positive yardage (goes into rushing numbers as well.)
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 6, 2006 17:33:42 GMT -6
Must bear in mind that NCAA statistics include sacks in rushing totals. For analytical purposes they should be included in passing totals. They also do not take into consideration plays where a pass was called, but the QB ran for positive yardage (goes into rushing numbers as well.) For the above numbers I moved all QB rushing totals to passing, and in each case this reduced yards per passing attempt and increased yards per rush. This may have gone too far by including ineffective called QB runs but if anything it inflated yards per carry. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 6, 2006 17:53:56 GMT -6
Don't want to appear to be nitpicking because you've done some good, hard work, but -
You can't move all QB rushing yardage into passing totals, because some attempts may have been option keeps, QB sneaks or draws, etc. - in other words, designed runs (Shovel passes are forward passes).
Also, if the majority of QB scrambles resulting in positive yardage were from zero to less than the designed running plays' average gain, it would decrease, not inflate, a team's average per rush.
The per play average is also affected by goal line plays. A scoring play from the one or two nets six points, but would lower the team's rushing or passing median.
This also raises the question: How do you judge a play's effectiveness - by its average gain, or the number of times it is successful (say, gains four or more yards)?
Simple example: We run the Draw play three times in a game for 33, 3, and 0 yards. The average is 12 yards a play - impressive. On the surface indicates this play was a good one and perhaps should've been called more. But it was only 33% successful.
You have to use a team's call sheet (script, or play-by-play) to analyze a play's effectiveness, rather than raw statistical data, with more accuracy. However, your figures are interesting and probably not too far off the mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 6, 2006 19:02:44 GMT -6
Well I mention at the outset that I oversimplified the numbers so I could use teams we're all familiar with than just paste a big dataset. I think these average numbers are far more important for first and second down--for third down I judge a play's effectiveness as either success or failure.
I also was working with stats I pulled off ESPN.com for the above reason, and I just wanted rough numbers, because the point was just to highlight the thinking behind this not really offer a conclusion for Texas Tech or Minnesota. That said, the five QB sneaks over the course of the season are not going to materially affect the numbers based on 1000+ plays.
I do think, at least for first down and probably for most second downs, you need to judge a play based on average gain. I do know what you mean about success rate--I use something called the Sharpe ratio (basically variance adjusted averages) to see how consistent a play is as well as how much it averages.
Thanks for the feedback though, I'm always up for discussion. The point though was not really to "break down" USC, Texas Tech and Minnesota, but just to use some random examples to better explain the thought process behind the yards per play numbers and our ideas about balance and a passing premium.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jul 6, 2006 19:43:12 GMT -6
spreadattack that is some good thought provoking stuff there
I have always been of the "semblance of balance" group. As long as we can throw it enough to run.
but this will make me think, which is good, and thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on Jul 8, 2006 10:08:53 GMT -6
i am just glad that I teach history and english....  |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Jul 8, 2006 11:16:28 GMT -6
somewhat "off topic" but it is my belief that through the course of the game i mainly focus on "balance" in my first down calls. after that, it's about getting the first down using the natural "flow" of the game (what they're doing, what we're doing well, etc.). i do try to take note of: "on the last two 3rd & shorts we ran power strong SO i think i'll go with the power pass" or something along those lines. but, as for just run-pass % play calls, i usually only focus on first down.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 8, 2006 13:23:12 GMT -6
somewhat "off topic" but it is my belief that through the course of the game i mainly focus on "balance" in my first down calls. after that, it's about getting the first down using the natural "flow" of the game (what they're doing, what we're doing well, etc.). i do try to take note of: "on the last two 3rd & shorts we ran power strong SO i think i'll go with the power pass" or something along those lines. but, as for just run-pass % play calls, i usually only focus on first down. I think that is an excellent point. Firsy down is the time for balance. After first down, you really have to go with what you believe will work. Sometimes that means you change it up, for instance on 2&10 if you have passed the last 3 times, you might run, but if the last 3 times have been good I would bet most of us would still pass. Another thing about balance is that it can be hard to judge what balance is even in a one game scenerio. For instance, the best team in my state the last six years usually passes like crazy the first half, but once they have a good lead, they run like crazy in the second half. It is great strategy. Get a lead and then milk the clock. But that is not all they are doing. They wear the DL out by rushing the passer and then run on them. They also are getting the other team to focus on the pass at halftime then come out and run on them. When the game is over, they are "balanced" on the stat sheet. So the team to play them next has to play them as balanced and the same thing happens again. |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jul 8, 2006 18:37:37 GMT -6
The main point of the thread of course was to redefine the notion of balance, and then you can do this analysis for each situation to see if you're maximizing your output. For example, Belichek applied some of the studied that showed that teams who pass more on 3rd and shorts and 4th and shorts convert them many fewer times, because incompletions happen at a far higher rate than teams don't make the first down by rushing. So he barely ever passes in those short yardage situations. This is also just food for thought, this might be a bit confusing but it's the probability of getting a first down in 3 plays with different average gains and standard deviation. Standard deviation is a measurement of play volatility, i.e. riskiness.  The really steep upward moving slope on the right side means that average/expected gain far outweighs the low standard deviations, or in other words if the goal is first downs then the low risk strategy will net you fewer first downs. Anyway, just an interesting chart if you run the numbers. Again, most of this whole analysis should be applied situationally, not just whole team numbers. And third downs is all about success/failure, no one cares about yards gained, just whether you get the first down. |
|
