Here are the basic lessons learned by Football Outsiders from statistically studying NFL football for a half-dozen years. This post by Aaron Schatz provides the discussion behind each one-liner:
You run when you win, not win when you run.
A great defense against the run is nothing without a good pass defense.
Running on third-and-short is more likely to convert than passing on third-and-short.
Standard team rankings based on total yardage are inherently flawed.
A team will score more when playing a bad defense, and will give up more points when playing a good offense.
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.
Rushing is more dependent on the offensive line than people realize, but pass protection is more dependent on the quarterback himself than people realize.
Shotgun formations are generally more efficient than formations with the quarterback under center.
A running back with 370 or more carries during the regular season will usually suffer either a major injury or a loss of effectiveness the following year, unless he is named Eric Dickerson.
Wide receivers must be judged on both complete and incomplete passes.
The total quality of an NFL team is three parts offense, three parts defense, and one part special teams.
Teams with more offensive penalties generally lose more games, but there is no correlation between defensive penalties and losses.
Field-goal percentage is almost entirely random from season to season, while kickoff distance is one of the most consistent statistics in football.
Recovery of a fumble, despite being the product of hard work, is almost entirely random.
Field position is fluid.
The red zone is the most important place on the field to play well, but performance in the red zone from year to year is much less consistent than overall performance.
Defenses which are weak on first and second down, but strong on third down, will tend to decline the following year. This trend also applied to offenses through 2005, but may or may not still apply today.
Injuries regress to the mean on the seasonal level, and teams that avoid injuries in a given season tend to win more games.
By and large, a team built on depth is better than a team built on stars and scrubs.
Running backs usually decline after age 28, tight ends after age 29, wide receivers after age 30, and quarterbacks after age 32.
The future NFL success of quarterbacks chosen in the first two rounds of the draft can be projected with a high degree of accuracy by using just two statistics from college: games started and completion percentage.
Highly-drafted wide receivers without many college touchdowns are likely to bust.
Championship teams are generally defined by their ability to dominate inferior opponents, not their ability to win close games.
Read the whole thing there.
Posts
20 comments:
Machete thoughts?? Saw it at a drive-in last night, and it made the double bill feature Piranha look smart. Danny Trejo certainly plays a great man-of-few-words tough guy ("Machete don't text"), but the extremely heavy handed immigration lecture and terrbile CGI gore made this a dud.
I once read a post at Slashdot, from a guy who tried to analyze grocery store* traffic patterns, so as to find product placement & pricing strategies which would maximize store profits, and after running the data through every algorithm known to man, his conclusion seemed to be that, in the end, it's all just noise.
Which, from what little military history I've read, would mimic the experience of generals on the battlefield [when matched against foes of more-or-less equal capability] - the general quickly loses any sense of what's going on, and has to just hope [and pray] that his underlings can adapt to circumstances as they change, and that they get a little lucky [or at least that they avoid any truly bad luck].
*I think it was a grocery store, but it might have been a casino and its slot machines [or maybe I am confusing two old Slashdot posts in my memory].
Shotgun formations are generally more efficient than formations with the quarterback under center.
This may be a true statement, but it has little practical value.
You can't run shotgun every time you intend to pass, because then you have no play action.
Championship teams are generally defined by their ability to dominate inferior opponents, not their ability to win close games.
Is that actually true? I don't think so.
Eric Dickerson never got any respect, did he?
interesting stuff.
"A team will score more when playing a bad defense, and will give up more points when playing a good offense."
Wow, that's deep.
-broodrack
"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. "
Hm. A case for more white running backs?
Sure ED got respect. No one ever looked better in a uniform- check him out at SMU
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/81475911/Sports-Illustrated
never had a great QB to take pressure off him. Redskins used to destroy Rams in playoffs for this reason.... Dieter Brock, Jeff Kemp et al were awful
Dan in DC
Machete.... no chance I'll see that.
Danny Trejo looks like Edward James Olmos with worse skin if that's possible.
Dan in Dc
"Running on third-and-short is more likely to convert than passing on third-and-short."
This seems so obvious even to a layman like me that I am constantly surprised at the number of drives short circuited by the decision to pass on third-and-short. Not only is conversion less likely but there is also the significant possibility of a sack for a loss of yardage or an interception and run back.
Camlost said...
"You can't run shotgun every time you intend to pass, because then you have no play action."
Read the article. Running plays are more effective from shotgun formation as well so you don't give up the play action.
"Shotgun offense is more efficient if you only look at the first half, on every down, and even if you only look at running back carries rather than passes and scrambles."
"A team will score more when playing a bad defense, and will give up more points when playing a good offense."
Wow, that's deep.
Some of these seem stupid until you read the explanation. On this one they're just saying that you need to look at strength of schedule when comparing players instead of just looking at the numbers. Two QBs could have the same numbers but if one is playing against better defenses he's having the better season.
"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. "
Hm. A case for more white running backs?
I think it's more a case of taking Jim Brown over Barry Sanders when choosing best of all time.
It is funny how much crap these guys take in comment areas around the web. It is like watching the sabermetric baseball revolution all over again. These stats are pretty solid. I've been reading them since day one. If you want proof, use their team aggregate stats to predict winners (both with and without spreads). You'll see two things. 1. Their stats are accurate 2. The folks who make the spreads really know what they are doing.
"I think it's more a case of taking Jim Brown over Barry Sanders when choosing best of all time."
Jim Brown was Barry Sanders's father's favorite back, so I wouldn't be surprised if Sanders himself would disagree with you. I wouldn't though.
I agree that consistency is probably preferable in most cases. But Barry Sanders was such a threat that his presence alone in the backfield had the potential of opening up the passing game. I remember one playoff game when the Lions played a team that completely stacked the box against Sanders, and the Lions just kept throwing the ball against that run defense and racked up the points.
Fred: Jim Brown was Barry Sanders's father's favorite back, so I wouldn't be surprised if Sanders himself would disagree with you. I wouldn't though.
You mean you WOULD be surprised, right?
Barry Sanders was the greatest "Boom and Bust" runner of all time. Probably merits an exception to the rule, like Eric Dickerson and 370 carries.
This seems so obvious even to a layman like me that I am constantly surprised at the number of drives short circuited by the decision to pass on third-and-short. Not only is conversion less likely but there is also the significant possibility of a sack for a loss of yardage or an interception and run back.
Cos sacks and interceptions only happen on third and short. I see.
"Cos sacks and interceptions only happen on third and short. I see."
Don't you claim to be an Australian?
Post a Comment