Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Where in your mind have you formed the conclusion that I think running always works? And im sorry my friend but as BB just told us and as you have so proudly and triumphantly reiterated,  it doesn't matter how many times we run the ball, so why would running less or a bit more in this case have any bearing on the outcome?  right zbellino?



    There are a bunch of red faces out there in Internet land right now... But we're all wrong I guess?

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, Bill Belichick, you know, the Hall of Famer ... he just said you were.

    Comment? Red face? 

    You folks are all REAL touchy right now, so I'm pretty sure this thread (and hearing the run/pass ratio house of cards come crashing down) has really got you riled up. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     The pass happy fantasy crew owned by Reis....

    [/QUOTE]


    Did Reiss just own the pass happy fantasy footballer Bill Belichick? Lols. 

    I actually find this hilarious, because I consider myself a run first guy. I'm just a fan of common sense and logic as opposed to dogmatic yammering that is disconnected from realistic discussion.

     

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [QUOTE ]

    Last year mcdaniels comes back, and we were 7th in rushing, 2nd in attempts and 1st in rushing tds. 3 different yesrs, 3 different running back cores with different talent...same results. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Haha. OK, so 1.) the run always works, never fails. 

    Then they ran it, decisively and with focus with Ridley against the Ravens and suffered the second most devastating playoff loss in Bill Belichick's tenure 28-13. 

    You and Mike Reiss should go figure that one out. 

    [/QUO
    Where in your mind have you formed the conclusion that I think running always works?

    [/QUOTE]

    If we want to, we will . we've proven it.

    What should a reader make of this ^ ?

    If New England wants to run, they will. It sounds like you are saying ... it just happens. 

    Second, I've never once see you blame anything other than not running the football for a loss. If you can produce a post that says otherwise, I'd love to see it.

    I mean, the big change is an offense that runs a bit less? Nevermind, a defense that has forced 0 turnovers in its last losses and is allowing close to 30 points per game in the playoffs, special teams that haven't come through in any meaningful way, a passing game that has dropped crucial passes, as opposed to players like Branch and Brown and Givens who nabbed gutsy game ending catches, and offensive line that doesn't clear the way for runners at times, poor coaching decisions (going for it on 4th and 14?), running backs who have run like trash or whole games (Maroney, Woodhead) or coughed up decisive fumbles (Ridley) ... there are so many reasons ... yet every single week if New England wins it is a report from you about how the running game decided it, and if they lose it's a report about how McDaniels, Bill Belichick and everyone else "forgot" what they figured out the week before. 

    Third, you routinely use ratios to express this that are culled from meaningless final totals that include two or three drives at the end of the game where New England was forced to throw, and ignore the fact that before that the pass-run total was quite even. H#ck, even at the beginning of this thread you are hammering on about 90 passes, x runs. As if that is statistically relevant in any way to the outcome??? Either way, rattling off an "unacceptable" ratio naturally implies that there is an acceptable ratio out there somewhere. 

    So. 

    You ask ... where people come to the conclusion that you think a.) the runs always works when you do it, b.) New England only loses when they forget to run, and c.) think there are ratios that need to be met?

    You say things that make it seem like New England only fails to run when they forget to run.

    You say things that only source the reason for all losses to a failure to run.

    You say things that point to unacceptable p/r ratios, implying that there is an acceptable one.

    How could anyone think any differently? If you have a list of other reasons why a fourth Lombardi has eluded New England, I'm all ears.

    Frankly, I could thinks of a dozen things off the top of my head, running too little might not even be on the list. And yes, specific coaching decisions may be on the list.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Ya mad bro?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    Too much for you braniacs?  I assure you, it's not too much for the braniac that runs the team.   Correlation Is not Causation: Why Running the Football Doesn’t Cause You to Win Games in the NFL

     

    Adrian Peterson I know we lost by 2 touchdowns, but if only you had given Peterson 3 more carries we would have won!

    Last week, ESPN ran an article about why the running game still matters. They used statistics to show that the more you run the football in the NFL, the more likely you are to win the game. Specifically, if you have a running back who gets at least 20 carries, you win about 70% of the time. Statistics from different eras all had the same result: it appears that the more you run the football, the better your odds of winning the football game are.

    If only it were that simple.

    There is no doubt that teams who run the football win more often. But that doesn’t mean that running the football causes the winning. After all, teams who kneel the ball in the 2nd half win about 99% of the time. So does that mean if teams simply took a knee more frequently in the 2nd half they’d win? Of course not!

    Let's dive into the numbers and see if we can figure out what is really going on here.

    The Relationship between Rushing and Winning

    First, let’s look at how running the football and winning are related. I took data from every game through week 9 of the 2013 NFL season, and recorded if there was a rusher who had over 20 carries and whether that team won or lost. Here are the results (and you can get all the data I used for this statistical analysis here).

    Tabulated Statistics

    So this year, when a team has a rusher who has 20 or more carries, they’ve won 67.65% of the time. This lines up very well with the statistics in the ESPN article. And you’ll notice that when a team didn’t have a rusher with 20 carries, they lost 56% of the time. Clearly, the more you run the ball, the more you win.

    But why did the author of the ESPN article choose 20 or more carries? Why not, say, 25 or more? Surely if running the football matters so much, a team that has a rusher with 25 or more carries must win even more, right? Let's see...

    Tabulated Statistics

    Oh...that’s why he chose 20: because choosing 25 didn’t help his argument. Teams with a rusher who has 25 or more carries have only won 54.55% of their games this year.

    So I guess coaches should get their star running back 20-24 carries, then sit him on the bench the rest of the game—68% of the time, it works every time!!

    But seriously, one of the problems with picking a “magic number” like 20 or 25 carries is that it decreases our sample size. There have only been 22 instances of a rusher with 25 or more carries this season. And only 68 (26%) have had a rusher get 20 or more carries.

    That means we’re ignoring almost three quarters of all the available data!

    To fix this problem, I’m going to use Binary Logistic Regression to model the relationship between the leading rusher's number of carries and winning. Binary Logistic Regression is similar to regular regression, except instead of modeling a continuous response (like weight) and a continuous predictor (like height), I’m using a binary response (win/loss) and a continuous predictor (number of carries).

    What we would expect is that as the number of carries by your lead rusher increases, your probability of winning increases, too.

    Binary Logistic Regression

    We see that the p-values in the Logistic Regression Table are 0, indicating that there is a significant association between carries by the lead rusher and wins. However, the p-values for the Goodness-of-fit Tests are all very low, too. A low p-value (specifically less than 0.05) indicates that the predicted probabilities deviate from the observed probabilities in a way that the binomial distribution does not predict.

    That means even though there is a significant association between carries by the lead rusher and wins, the model that was created fits the data very poorly.  In other words, our model does a really bad job predicting whether a team won or lost given the number of carries by the lead rusher.

    This is not surprising, seeing as the probability of winning went down when we increased the carries from 20 to 25. So the number of carries by the lead rusher doesn’t cause a team to win.

    But I’m not done with this “rushing causes winning” myth yet!  

    The Relationship between Team Rushing and Winning

    When I was collecting the data, I noticed multiple cases where a team had a rusher below 20 carries even though they blew the other team out. Take, for instance, Seattle’s week 3 game against Jacksonville, or San Francisco’s week 5 game against Houston.

    In both games, Seattle and San Francisco won by at least 4 touchdowns. But their lead rushers only had 17 carries! The reason for this is because they had such large leads, they played their backups before their starting running backs could get to 20 carries. And because the backups played so early, the losing team’s starting running back actually had more carries than the winning teams (more evidence of why the previous model wasn't good).

    However, as a team, Seattle and San Francisco had more rushing attempts than Jacksonville and Houston. So what if instead of limiting our rushing attempts to a single person, we use team rushing attempts instead.

    Binary Logistic Regression

    The p-values in the Logistic Regression Table are 0, indicating a significant association between team rush attempts and wins. And this time our p-values for the goodness-of-fits tests are all greater than 0.05, indicating that that this model is much better than our previous one.

    So now that we have a model, we can use that to predict the probability of winning a game based on the entire team's number of rushing attempts.

    Binary Logistic Regression

    Here, I used the model to predict a team’s probability of winning based on the number of attempts. With only 10 attempts, a team has only a 6.8% chance of winning. This increases as the number of attempts increase, all the way up to a 97.6% chance of winning if you have 50 attempts!

    So have we done it? Have we shown that teams that run the ball more win more often? Should I call the Denver Broncos front office and tell them to trade Peyton Manning for Adrian Peterson?

    No, not yet. First, I want to answer one question. Is the running causing the winning...or is the winning causing the running? (Don’t worry, we’re almost done, and I promise no more binary logistic regression.)

    Do Teams Rush to Gain the Lead, or Rush After They Have the Lead?

    We’ve established that teams who rush more often win more often. But when are those rushing attempts coming? Just like taking a knee, the extra rushing attempts may just come at the end of the game when the winning team is trying to run the clock.

    Take a look at the following table, which presents the average number of rushing attempts for the winning and losing team at different points in the game.

     

    Total Rushing Attempts

    Attempts through the first 3 quarters

    Attempts in the 4th quarter

    Winning Team

    30.6

    20.8

    9.7

    Losing Team

    22.9

    18.8

    4.1


    So on average, the winning team out-rushes the losing team by almost 8 attempts. However, through the first 3 quarters of the game, the number of rushing attempts is almost equal, with the winning team averaging only two more. But when you get to the 4th quarter, the winning team averages 5.6 more rushing attempts than the losing team! Of course, this could be viewed two different ways. Either winning teams are already winning in the 4th quarter, and thus rush more to run the clock. Or teams who don’t get pass wacky in the 4th quarter win because they stick to the run!

    So which is it? Do teams rush to gain the lead, or rush after they have the lead?

    Below is a fitted line plot showing the relationship between a team’s number of rushing attempts through the first 3 quarters of the game, and the scoring margin going into the 4th quarter. If running truly helps you win, a higher number of rushing attempts should result in a greater lead going into the 4th quarter.

    Fitted Line Plot

    The points appear to be randomly scattered about. The small R2 value of 6% shows almost no relationship between rush attempts through the first 3 quarters and having a lead going into the 4th quarter.

    So now we’re going to plot the relationship between the margin going into the 4th quarter, and the number of rushing attempts during the 4th quarter.

    Fitted Line Plot

    This plot shows that teams with larger leads going into the 4th quarter have more rushing attempts. This plot indicates that it’s the winning that leads to the rushing, not the other way around.

    And notice the points I circled on the left hand side of the graph. Those are teams that are behind by so many points that they’re rushing the ball in the 4th quarter just to end the game, rather than trying to throw to catch up (Hello, Jacksonville!). If we don’t include those points (since the team is no longer trying to win), our R2 value increases to 30%. That means that 30% of the variation in the number of rushing attempts a team makes in the 4th quarter can be explained by how many points they’re ahead or behind going into the 4th quarter. Considering all the crazy things that can happen in a quarter of football, I’d say that’s pretty high!

    Rushing is definitely an important part of football, but don’t fool yourself into thinking there is some magic number of rushing attempts that guarantees victory. Winning teams have more rushing attempts mostly because they’re trying to run the clock out while the losing team has to throw to catch up. So spread the awareness, lest we have to listen to more fans who think they know more than coaches yelling, “Our team is undefeated when they run the ball at least 30 times. Somebody tell the coaches to run the ball more!!!”

     

    You might like: Use the Minitab Assistant to Choose a Graph - Statistics and Quality Improvement | Minitab Use the Minitab Assistant to Choose a Graph - Statistics and Quality Improvement | Minitab Normality Tests and Rounding - The Statistical Mentor | Minitab Normality Tests and Rounding - The Statistical Mentor | Minitab Regression Analysis Tutorial and Examples - Adventures in Statistics | Minitab Regression Analysis Tutorial and Examples - Adventures in Statistics | Minitab Avoiding a Lean Six Sigma Project Failure, part 4 - Real-World Quality Improvement | Minitab Avoiding a Lean Six Sigma Project Failure, part 4 - Real-World Quality Improvement | Minitab Avoiding a Lean Six Sigma Project Failure, part 4 - Real-World Quality Improvement | Minitab   Regression Analysis Tutorial and Examples - Adventures in Statistics | Minitab   Normality Tests and Rounding - The Statistical Mentor | Minitab   Use the Minitab Assistant to Choose a Graph - Statistics and Quality Improvement | Minitab   To improve these recommendations, Register for Outbrain

     

    Previous Post Prev Next Next Post

     

    Comments for Correlation Is not Causation: Why Running the Football Doesn’t Cause You to Win Games in the NFL
    Name: Chillbro Swaggins
    Time: Tuesday, November 12, 2013

    Penn State is undefeated this year in games I have attended. Someone in Athletics better buy me a flight to Wisconsin for the final game!
    Name: Erik S.
    Time: Wednesday, December 4, 2013

    Any chance you can add passing attempts to the data set? Another approach would be rushing attempts as a % of total attempts. Would you still use binary logistic regression if your variable is a % rather than discrete #?
    Leave a comment Name
    Email
    Your comment (No HTML)
    Type the text from the image below
    Captcha

     

    Tour Minitab 16 Tour Quality Trainer
    Subscribe to Our Blog Like Us on Facebook! Connect With Us on LinkedIn Follow Us on Twitter Watch Us on YouTube

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

     

     


    Oh great, pezz is here. Here comes a lot of "FACT" " LEARN THE GAME" LIAR" and other great stuff.

     

    What does pcm say to you all the time? Once again, you've missed the point.

    It isn't about a magical number of rushes that every team hits and they win. I know zbellino likes to make it seem like that is what im saying as it becomes easier for him to retort but it just isn't the case. It's about this....

    There is a common thread to some of the Patriots' most devastating losses in Bill Belichick's coaching tenure, most of which were of the season-ending variety: The offense was so focused on letting it fly in those games that it struggled to control the line of scrimmage.

     

     

    And it's not as if the Patriots can't still pick their spots in the passing game, as a potent running attack can set up lethal play-action possibilities for Tom Brady.

     

    The Patriots are at their best when the running game is the focal point.

     

    Think about what a difference it would have made in some of the painful losses in recent franchise history.

     

     

    But you probably think Mike Reiss is an idiot too. Hey send him one of your diagrams maybe he can wrap his weiii little mind around your Pygmalion theory.

     

     

     

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    ^ chances the run group reads this? Funny thing most of us love when the team runs the ball.  It just all this dogma. The coaches aren't perfect and its fine to call out some the possible mistakes. But to think BB doesn't realize when and how to run the ball is moronic. 

    Just say it BB has been a subpar coach and be done with it.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to csylvia79's comment:

     

    ^ chances the run group reads this? Funny thing most of us love when the team runs the ball.  It just all this dogma. The coaches aren't perfect and its fine to call out some the possible mistakes. But to think BB doesn't realize when and how to run the ball is moronic. 

    Just say it BB has been a subpar coach and be done with it.

     



    I've said that O'Brien was a sub par signal caller since 2010.  I swear you guys think we coerced Mike Reiss into writing this today.  The ultimate sign that all is lost; "you guys think you know more than Belichick."  

    Just waive the white flag and be done with it.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to csylvia79's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ^ chances the run group reads this? Funny thing most of us love when the team runs the ball.  It just all this dogma. The coaches aren't perfect and its fine to call out some the possible mistakes. But to think BB doesn't realize when and how to run the ball is moronic. 

    Just say it BB has been a subpar coach and be done with it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well I think he's the greatest coach in the game, and the greatest team builder in the game. He also has a whole bunch of other coaches.  None of their defensive game plans are in the hall of fame. His is, so he does this...a lot.....

     

     

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oh great, pezz is here. Here comes a lot of "FACT" " LEARN THE GAME" LIAR" and other great stuff.

    What does pcm say to you all the time? Once again, you've missed the point.

    It isn't about a magical number of rushes that every team hits and they win. I know zbellino likes to make it seem like that is what im saying as it becomes easier for him to retort but it just isn't the case. It's about this....

    There is a common thread to some of the Patriots' most devastating losses in Bill Belichick's coaching tenure, most of which were of the season-ending variety: The offense was so focused on letting it fly in those games that it struggled to control the line of scrimmage.

    And it's not as if the Patriots can't still pick their spots in the passing game, as a potent running attack can set up lethal play-action possibilities for Tom Brady.

    The Patriots are at their best when the running game is the focal point. 

    Think about what a difference it would have made in some of the painful losses in recent franchise history. 

    But you probably think Mike Reiss is an idiot too. Hey send him one of your diagrams maybe he can wrap his weiii little mind around your Pygmalion theory. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I've had Pezzz on ignore for years now, there's only so many diagrams and pie charts I can read that tell that me the Earth is really flat.. followed by poorly phrased insults of course.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to csylvia79's comment:

     

    ^ chances the run group reads this? Funny thing most of us love when the team runs the ball.  It just all this dogma. The coaches aren't perfect and its fine to call out some the possible mistakes. But to think BB doesn't realize when and how to run the ball is moronic. 

    Just say it BB has been a subpar coach and be done with it.

     



    I've said that O'Brien was a sub par signal caller since 2010.  I swear you guys think we coerced Mike Reiss into writing this today.  The ultimate sign that all is lost; "you guys think you know more than Belichick."  

    Just waive the white flag and be done with it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Mike reiss just thinks he knows more then BB....what an idiot.

    An age old tactic when losing your footing in a debate. Attack the man across from you, attempt to discredit what he is saying by exxagerating, distorting,  or demeaning his words. These guys should run for office!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oh great, pezz is here. Here comes a lot of "FACT" " LEARN THE GAME" LIAR" and other great stuff.

    What does pcm say to you all the time? Once again, you've missed the point.

    It isn't about a magical number of rushes that every team hits and they win. I know zbellino likes to make it seem like that is what im saying as it becomes easier for him to retort but it just isn't the case. It's about this....

    There is a common thread to some of the Patriots' most devastating losses in Bill Belichick's coaching tenure, most of which were of the season-ending variety: The offense was so focused on letting it fly in those games that it struggled to control the line of scrimmage.

    And it's not as if the Patriots can't still pick their spots in the passing game, as a potent running attack can set up lethal play-action possibilities for Tom Brady.

    The Patriots are at their best when the running game is the focal point. 

    Think about what a difference it would have made in some of the painful losses in recent franchise history. 

    But you probably think Mike Reiss is an idiot too. Hey send him one of your diagrams maybe he can wrap his weiii little mind around your Pygmalion theory. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I've had Pezzz on ignore for years now, there's only so many diagrams and pie charts I can read that tell that me the Earth is really flat.. followed by poorly phrased insults of course.

    [/QUOTE]

    You nailed it. I skimmed through a 3 page back and forth with him and rusty( yeah I've had a lil time on my hands lately) and counted 13 "LIAR"s 9 "FACT"s and 5 or 6 "LEARN THE GAME"s. Above he posted a chart about something to do with the theory of relativity as it relates conversely to why the sky isn't really blue. Deep stuff. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    You nailed it. I skimmed through a 3 page back and forth with him and rusty( yeah I've had a lil time on my hands lately) and counted 13 "LIAR"s 9 "FACT"s and 5 or 6 "LEARN THE GAME"s. Above he posted a chart about something to do with the theory of relativity as it relates conversely to why the sky isn't really blue. Deep stuff. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you know how I knew the offense has been sub par in the playoffs during the Obie era, I looked at the final score.  

    I didn't even need the triple secret decoder ring to decipher it lol!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     


    Oh great, pezz is here. Here comes a lot of "FACT" " LEARN THE GAME" LIAR" and other great stuff.

     

    What does pcm say to you all the time? Once again, you've missed the point.

    It isn't about a magical number of rushes that every team hits and they win. I know zbellino likes to make it seem like that is what im saying as it becomes easier for him to retort but it just isn't the case. It's about this....

    There is a common thread to some of the Patriots' most devastating losses in Bill Belichick's coaching tenure, most of which were of the season-ending variety: The offense was so focused on letting it fly in those games that it struggled to control the line of scrimmage.

     

     

    And it's not as if the Patriots can't still pick their spots in the passing game, as a potent running attack can set up lethal play-action possibilities for Tom Brady.

     

    The Patriots are at their best when the running game is the focal point.

     

    Think about what a difference it would have made in some of the painful losses in recent franchise history.

     

     

    But you probably think Mike Reiss is an idiot too. Hey send him one of your diagrams maybe he can wrap his weiii little mind around your Pygmalion theory.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Correlation is not causation.

    Where have you heard this before?  It's been mentioned several times and by BB himself.

    I get it 100% and you are missing the point, not me.

    Rushing occurs more when you are winning, it's proven right before your very eyes.

    Rushing 30 times in SB 42 or 46 or EVER, is not helping you win, It occurs because you are winning and it's also dependent on how much your winning by.  If you are not comfortable with a 1 score lead entering the 4th,( because your D is giving up points) you are probably not going to run much.

    As stated (and proven) most teams are fairly even in rush attempts until that quarter.  It's the score up to that point that matters, as BB the genius has said.

    It becomes a little more complicated when lack of possessions, virtually turns a half into a quarter.  IE; 4 possessions in an entire half.  You are then in 4th quarter mode, throughout, as I have tried to explain to you a thousand times.  What your D is doing, matters.

    The situation, down and distance matters.  This matters ----->

    "Rushing is definitely an important part of football, but don’t fool yourself into thinking there is some magic number of rushing attempts that guarantees victory. Winning teams have more rushing attempts mostly because they’re trying to run the clock out while the losing team has to throw to catch up. So spread the awareness, lest we have to listen to more fans who think they know more than coaches yelling, “Our team is undefeated when they run the ball at least 30 times. Somebody tell the coaches to run the ball more!!!”


    And yes, learning the game would also help.Tongue Out

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oh great, pezz is here. Here comes a lot of "FACT" " LEARN THE GAME" LIAR" and other great stuff.

    What does pcm say to you all the time? Once again, you've missed the point.

    It isn't about a magical number of rushes that every team hits and they win. I know zbellino likes to make it seem like that is what im saying as it becomes easier for him to retort but it just isn't the case. It's about this....

    There is a common thread to some of the Patriots' most devastating losses in Bill Belichick's coaching tenure, most of which were of the season-ending variety: The offense was so focused on letting it fly in those games that it struggled to control the line of scrimmage.

    And it's not as if the Patriots can't still pick their spots in the passing game, as a potent running attack can set up lethal play-action possibilities for Tom Brady.

    The Patriots are at their best when the running game is the focal point. 

    Think about what a difference it would have made in some of the painful losses in recent franchise history. 

    But you probably think Mike Reiss is an idiot too. Hey send him one of your diagrams maybe he can wrap his weiii little mind around your Pygmalion theory. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I've had Pezzz on ignore for years now, there's only so many diagrams and pie charts I can read that tell that me the Earth is really flat.. followed by poorly phrased insults of course.

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, the earth is circular and all the pie charts and graphs prove that.

    The same goes for rushing.  It's too bad you will never understand it.

    Then maybe, you could have an unbiased, less agenda driven, factual conversation with those that do.

    Minus the insults, of course, which seem to be the only thing that some people around here understand.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [QUOTE ]

    Last year mcdaniels comes back, and we were 7th in rushing, 2nd in attempts and 1st in rushing tds. 3 different yesrs, 3 different running back cores with different talent...same results. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    Haha. OK, so 1.) the run always works, never fails. 

    Then they ran it, decisively and with focus with Ridley against the Ravens and suffered the second most devastating playoff loss in Bill Belichick's tenure 28-13. 

    You and Mike Reiss should go figure that one out. 

    [/QUO
    Where in your mind have you formed the conclusion that I think running always works?

    [/QUOTE]

    If we want to, we will . we've proven it.

    What should a reader make of this ^ ?

    If New England wants to run, they will. It sounds like you are saying ... it just happens. 

    Second, I've never once see you blame anything other than not running the football for a loss. If you can produce a post that says otherwise, I'd love to see it.

    I mean, the big change is an offense that runs a bit less? Nevermind, a defense that has forced 0 turnovers in its last losses and is allowing close to 30 points per game in the playoffs, special teams that haven't come through in any meaningful way, a passing game that has dropped crucial passes, as opposed to players like Branch and Brown and Givens who nabbed gutsy game ending catches, and offensive line that doesn't clear the way for runners at times, poor coaching decisions (going for it on 4th and 14?), running backs who have run like trash or whole games (Maroney, Woodhead) or coughed up decisive fumbles (Ridley) ... there are so many reasons ... yet every single week if New England wins it is a report from you about how the running game decided it, and if they lose it's a report about how McDaniels, Bill Belichick and everyone else "forgot" what they figured out the week before. 

    Third, you routinely use ratios to express this that are culled from meaningless final totals that include two or three drives at the end of the game where New England was forced to throw, and ignore the fact that before that the pass-run total was quite even. H#ck, even at the beginning of this thread you are hammering on about 90 passes, x runs. As if that is statistically relevant in any way to the outcome??? Either way, rattling off an "unacceptable" ratio naturally implies that there is an acceptable ratio out there somewhere. 

    So. 

    You ask ... where people come to the conclusion that you think a.) the runs always works when you do it, b.) New England only loses when they forget to run, and c.) think there are ratios that need to be met?

    You say things that make it seem like New England only fails to run when they forget to run.

    You say things that only source the reason for all losses to a failure to run.

    You say things that point to unacceptable p/r ratios, implying that there is an acceptable one.

    How could anyone think any differently? If you have a list of other reasons why a fourth Lombardi has eluded New England, I'm all ears.

    Frankly, I could thinks of a dozen things off the top of my head, running too little might not even be on the list. And yes, specific coaching decisions may be on the list.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Ya mad bro?

    [/QUOTE]

    Huh? How does that even connote anger? You asked a question. I gave you an in depth answer. You make it sound like a.) running always works, b.) running is the only reason ne loses games, and c.) you use ratios to express this. 

    You have nothing to say now?

    After a thread of insults, sarcasm, etcetera? 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to csylvia79's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ^ chances the run group reads this? Funny thing most of us love when the team runs the ball.  It just all this dogma. The coaches aren't perfect and its fine to call out some the possible mistakes. But to think BB doesn't realize when and how to run the ball is moronic. 

    Just say it BB has been a subpar coach and be done with it.

    [/QUOTE]


    They can't say it. They worship him. They have to somehow fit their worship of Belichick with their hatred of the game plans. They can't accept these contradictions so they blame it on the assistant coaches or Brady. It's as if Belichick is responsible for every game plan that wins but Brady and the OC were in charge of the losses. It's the only thing that fits their theories so they have to stick with it or they would have to admit something they don't want to. Their hero does not believe in what they believe in. In fact he seems to believe in the opposite.

    I think the Pats are now a run first team because that's where there offensive strengths seem to lie without Gronk. I will be happy as heck if the Pats run it 50 times on sunday and pass it 10 times as long as they win. If they lose with that ratio I'll criticize him for losing to an inferior team, not because my game plan was better. He's watching the film, not me. He's won the super bowls not me. He will do what he thinks is best no matter what I or anyone else says. If any coach in the history of the NFL cares less about outside opinion it's him. Maybe he sees some weakness in the Colts whereby Vereen get's more playing time than Blount. That's for him to decide. I disagree with many of his decisiones but there is no coach I would rather see on the Pats sideline. Unlike some coaches he thinks out of the box and wins. He wins a lot and thats all I care about.

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oh great, pezz is here. Here comes a lot of "FACT" " LEARN THE GAME" LIAR" and other great stuff.

    What does pcm say to you all the time? Once again, you've missed the point.

    It isn't about a magical number of rushes that every team hits and they win. I know zbellino likes to make it seem like that is what im saying as it becomes easier for him to retort but it just isn't the case. It's about this....

    There is a common thread to some of the Patriots' most devastating losses in Bill Belichick's coaching tenure, most of which were of the season-ending variety: The offense was so focused on letting it fly in those games that it struggled to control the line of scrimmage.

    And it's not as if the Patriots can't still pick their spots in the passing game, as a potent running attack can set up lethal play-action possibilities for Tom Brady.

    The Patriots are at their best when the running game is the focal point. 

    Think about what a difference it would have made in some of the painful losses in recent franchise history. 

    But you probably think Mike Reiss is an idiot too. Hey send him one of your diagrams maybe he can wrap his weiii little mind around your Pygmalion theory. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I've had Pezzz on ignore for years now, there's only so many diagrams and pie charts I can read that tell that me the Earth is really flat.. followed by poorly phrased insults of course.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow. That's just incredibly ignorant. 

    That is an excellent article. You are missing out. 

    Here is a hint: the pie charts explain why the earth is round.... it's the ignorant man who keeps saying it's flat because he is still walking on it without falling off and refuses any explanation to the contrary.

    Though it's not even that complex ... understanding what Bill Belichick told that reporter and what that chart about correlation says is actually really incredibly easy. If it seems complex I'm sorry for you.  

    There is no connection between running more and winning. Nothing really separates winners from losers based on run attempts, because on average, through the first three quarters, they run the same amount. 

    Just like New England, through three quarters, runs about the same amount now in the playoffs (22/30 run/pass attempts through three quarters) as they did under Weiss (23/29  run/pass through three quarters). The only difference in the final totals is that they aren't entering the final quarter with a lead to protect with the run. 

    Also, again, Bill Belichick basically stated exactly what that pie chart says: running more is an outcome of success not a necessary precursor. Or in his terms: Football isn't about "getting the ball to one player or position a certain number of times."

    Any other explanation is just snake oil ... dogma. It has no connection with how football is actually called and executed.  

    Really, this is common sense ... teams win with a variety of tactics. There is no golden rule. 

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    You nailed it. I skimmed through a 3 page back and forth with him and rusty( yeah I've had a lil time on my hands lately) and counted 13 "LIAR"s 9 "FACT"s and 5 or 6 "LEARN THE GAME"s. Above he posted a chart about something to do with the theory of relativity as it relates conversely to why the sky isn't really blue. Deep stuff. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you know how I knew the offense has been sub par in the playoffs during the Obie era, I looked at the final score.  

    I didn't even need the triple secret decoder ring to decipher it lol!

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, it also doesn't take a secret decoder ring to figure out that NE actually has scored more per game under McDaniels and Obrien than under Weiss in the playoffs, and they've turned the ball over less. 

    They just didn't have a defense scoring touchdowns for them, and holding opponents to low scores every other game. 

    It doesn't take a decoder ring to understand how the defense has basically flatlined either. 

    But then, maybe Bill Belichick just lost the super-secret game plan: "Just Run Dummy by Wozzy, Rusty, and True Champ" the weeks they lost games, only to miraculously uncover it on the weeks they won games. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]Too much for you braniacs?  I assure you, it's not too much for the braniac that runs the team.   Correlation Is not Causation: Why Running the Football Doesn’t Cause You to Win Games in the NFL

     

    Adrian Peterson I know we lost by 2 touchdowns, but if only you had given Peterson 3 more carries we would have won!

    Last week, ESPN ran an article about why the running game still matters. They used statistics to show that the more you run the football in the NFL, the more likely you are to win the game. Specifically, if you have a running back who gets at least 20 carries, you win about 70% of the time. Statistics from different eras all had the same result: it appears that the more you run the football, the better your odds of winning the football game are.

    If only it were that simple.

    There is no doubt that teams who run the football win more often. But that doesn’t mean that running the football causes the winning. After all, teams who kneel the ball in the 2nd half win about 99% of the time. So does that mean if teams simply took a knee more frequently in the 2nd half they’d win? Of course not!

    Let's dive into the numbers and see if we can figure out what is really going on here.

    The Relationship between Rushing and Winning

    First, let’s look at how running the football and winning are related. I took data from every game through week 9 of the 2013 NFL season, and recorded if there was a rusher who had over 20 carries and whether that team won or lost. Here are the results (and you can get all the data I used for this statistical analysis here).

    Tabulated Statistics

    So this year, when a team has a rusher who has 20 or more carries, they’ve won 67.65% of the time. This lines up very well with the statistics in the ESPN article. And you’ll notice that when a team didn’t have a rusher with 20 carries, they lost 56% of the time. Clearly, the more you run the ball, the more you win.

    But why did the author of the ESPN article choose 20 or more carries? Why not, say, 25 or more? Surely if running the football matters so much, a team that has a rusher with 25 or more carries must win even more, right? Let's see...

    Tabulated Statistics

    Oh...that’s why he chose 20: because choosing 25 didn’t help his argument. Teams with a rusher who has 25 or more carries have only won 54.55% of their games this year.

    So I guess coaches should get their star running back 20-24 carries, then sit him on the bench the rest of the game—68% of the time, it works every time!!

    But seriously, one of the problems with picking a “magic number” like 20 or 25 carries is that it decreases our sample size. There have only been 22 instances of a rusher with 25 or more carries this season. And only 68 (26%) have had a rusher get 20 or more carries.

    That means we’re ignoring almost three quarters of all the available data!

    To fix this problem, I’m going to use Binary Logistic Regression to model the relationship between the leading rusher's number of carries and winning. Binary Logistic Regression is similar to regular regression, except instead of modeling a continuous response (like weight) and a continuous predictor (like height), I’m using a binary response (win/loss) and a continuous predictor (number of carries).

    What we would expect is that as the number of carries by your lead rusher increases, your probability of winning increases, too.

    Binary Logistic Regression

    We see that the p-values in the Logistic Regression Table are 0, indicating that there is a significant association between carries by the lead rusher and wins. However, the p-values for the Goodness-of-fit Tests are all very low, too. A low p-value (specifically less than 0.05) indicates that the predicted probabilities deviate from the observed probabilities in a way that the binomial distribution does not predict.

    That means even though there is a significant association between carries by the lead rusher and wins, the model that was created fits the data very poorly.  In other words, our model does a really bad job predicting whether a team won or lost given the number of carries by the lead rusher.

    This is not surprising, seeing as the probability of winning went down when we increased the carries from 20 to 25. So the number of carries by the lead rusher doesn’t cause a team to win.

    But I’m not done with this “rushing causes winning” myth yet!  

    The Relationship between TeamRushing and Winning

    When I was collecting the data, I noticed multiple cases where a team had a rusher below 20 carries even though they blew the other team out. Take, for instance, Seattle’s week 3 game against Jacksonville, or San Francisco’s week 5 game against Houston.

    In both games, Seattle and San Francisco won by at least 4 touchdowns. But their lead rushers only had 17 carries! The reason for this is because they had such large leads, they played their backups before their starting running backs could get to 20 carries. And because the backups played so early, the losing team’s starting running back actually had more carries than the winning teams (more evidence of why the previous model wasn't good).

    However, as a team, Seattle and San Francisco had more rushing attempts than Jacksonville and Houston. So what if instead of limiting our rushing attempts to a single person, we use team rushing attempts instead.

    Binary Logistic Regression

    The p-values in the Logistic Regression Table are 0, indicating a significant association between team rush attempts and wins. And this time our p-values for the goodness-of-fits tests are all greater than 0.05, indicating that that this model is much better than our previous one.

    So now that we have a model, we can use that to predict the probability of winning a game based on the entire team's number of rushing attempts.

    Binary Logistic Regression

    Here, I used the model to predict a team’s probability of winning based on the number of attempts. With only 10 attempts, a team has only a 6.8% chance of winning. This increases as the number of attempts increase, all the way up to a 97.6% chance of winning if you have 50 attempts!

    So have we done it? Have we shown that teams that run the ball more win more often? Should I call the Denver Broncos front office and tell them to trade Peyton Manning for Adrian Peterson?

    No, not yet. First, I want to answer one question. Is the running causing the winning...or is the winning causing the running? (Don’t worry, we’re almost done, and I promise no more binary logistic regression.)

    Do Teams Rush to Gain the Lead, or Rush After They Have the Lead?

    We’ve established that teams who rush more often win more often. But when are those rushing attempts coming? Just like taking a knee, the extra rushing attempts may just come at the end of the game when the winning team is trying to run the clock.

    Take a look at the following table, which presents the average number of rushing attempts for the winning and losing team at different points in the game.

     

    Total Rushing Attempts

    Attempts through the first 3 quarters

    Attempts in the 4th quarter

    Winning Team

    30.6

    20.8

    9.7

    Losing Team

    22.9

    18.8

    4.1


    So on average, the winning team out-rushes the losing team by almost 8 attempts. However, through the first 3 quarters of the game, the number of rushing attempts is almost equal, with the winning team averaging only two more. But when you get to the 4th quarter, the winning team averages 5.6 more rushing attempts than the losing team! Of course, this could be viewed two different ways. Either winning teams are already winning in the 4th quarter, and thus rush more to run the clock. Or teams who don’t get pass wacky in the 4th quarter win because they stick to the run!

    So which is it? Do teams rush to gain the lead, or rush after they have the lead?

    Below is a fitted line plot showing the relationship between a team’s number of rushing attempts through the first 3 quarters of the game, and the scoring margin going into the 4th quarter. If running truly helps you win, a higher number of rushing attempts should result in a greater lead going into the 4th quarter.

    Fitted Line Plot

    The points appear to be randomly scattered about. The small R2 value of 6% shows almost no relationship between rush attempts through the first 3 quarters and having a lead going into the 4th quarter.

    So now we’re going to plot the relationship between the margin going into the 4th quarter, and the number of rushing attempts during the 4th quarter.

    Fitted Line Plot

    This plot shows that teams with larger leads going into the 4th quarter have more rushing attempts. This plot indicates that it’s the winning that leads to the rushing, not the other way around.

    And notice the points I circled on the left hand side of the graph. Those are teams that are behind by so many points that they’re rushing the ball in the 4th quarter just to end the game, rather than trying to throw to catch up (Hello, Jacksonville!). If we don’t include those points (since the team is no longer trying to win), our R2 value increases to 30%. That means that 30% of the variation in the number of rushing attempts a team makes in the 4th quarter can be explained by how many points they’re ahead or behind going into the 4th quarter. Considering all the crazy things that can happen in a quarter of football, I’d say that’s pretty high!

    Rushing is definitely an important part of football, but don’t fool yourself into thinking there is some magic number of rushing attempts that guarantees victory. Winning teams have more rushing attempts mostly because they’re trying to run the clock out while the losing team has to throw to catch up. So spread the awareness, lest we have to listen to more fans who think they know more than coaches yelling, “Our team is undefeated when they run the ball at least 30 times. Somebody tell the coaches to run the ball more!!!”

     

    You might like: Use the Minitab Assistant to Choose a Graph - Statistics and Quality Improvement | Minitab Use the Minitab Assistant to Choose a Graph - Statistics and Quality Improvement | Minitab Normality Tests and Rounding - The Statistical Mentor | Minitab Normality Tests and Rounding - The Statistical Mentor | Minitab Regression Analysis Tutorial and Examples - Adventures in Statistics | Minitab Regression Analysis Tutorial and Examples - Adventures in Statistics | Minitab Avoiding a Lean Six Sigma Project Failure, part 4 - Real-World Quality Improvement | Minitab Avoiding a Lean Six Sigma Project Failure, part 4 - Real-World Quality Improvement | Minitab Avoiding a Lean Six Sigma Project Failure, part 4 - Real-World Quality Improvement | Minitab   Regression Analysis Tutorial and Examples - Adventures in Statistics | Minitab   Normality Tests and Rounding - The Statistical Mentor | Minitab   Use the Minitab Assistant to Choose a Graph - Statistics and Quality Improvement | Minitab   To improve these recommendations, Register for Outbrain

     

    Previous Post Prev Next Next Post

     

    Comments for Correlation Is not Causation: Why Running the Football Doesn’t Cause You to Win Games in the NFL

    Name: Chillbro Swaggins
    Time: Tuesday, November 12, 2013

    Penn State is undefeated this year in games I have attended. Someone in Athletics better buy me a flight to Wisconsin for the final game!
    Name: Erik S.
    Time: Wednesday, December 4, 2013

    Any chance you can add passing attempts to the data set? Another approach would be rushing attempts as a % of total attempts. Would you still use binary logistic regression if your variable is a % rather than discrete #?

    Leave a comment Name
    Email
    Your comment (No HTML)
    Type the text from the image below
    Captcha

     

    Tour Minitab 16 Tour Quality Trainer


    Subscribe to Our Blog Like Us on Facebook! Connect With Us on LinkedIn Follow Us on Twitter Watch Us on YouTube

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Pretty impressive stuff, even though I am completely lost on "binary logistic regression."
    Do you do stuff like this for a living? That would take me a month to put together. The charts were easy to follow the rest was a little over my head.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to csylvia79's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ^ chances the run group reads this? Funny thing most of us love when the team runs the ball.  It just all this dogma. The coaches aren't perfect and its fine to call out some the possible mistakes. But to think BB doesn't realize when and how to run the ball is moronic. 

    Just say it BB has been a subpar coach and be done with it.

    [/QUOTE]


    They can't say it. They worship him. They have to somehow fit their worship of Belichick with their hatred of the game plans. They can't accept these contradictions so they blame it on the assistant coaches or Brady. It's as if Belichick is responsible for every game plan that wins but Brady and the OC were in charge of the losses. It's the only thing that fits their theories so they have to stick with it or they would have to admit something they don't want to. Their hero does not believe in what they believe in. In fact he seems to believe in the opposite.

    I think the Pats are now a run first team because that's where there offensive strengths seem to lie without Gronk. I will be happy as heck if the Pats run it 50 times on sunday and pass it 10 times as long as they win. If they lose with that ratio I'll criticize him for losing to an inferior team, not because my game plan was better. He's watching the film, not me. He's won the super bowls not me. He will do what he thinks is best no matter what I or anyone else says. If any coach in the history of the NFL cares less about outside opinion it's him. Maybe he sees some weakness in the Colts whereby Vereen get's more playing time than Blount. That's for him to decide. I disagree with many of his decisiones but there is no coach I would rather see on the Pats sideline. Unlike some coaches he thinks out of the box and wins. He wins a lot and thats all I care about.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    totally agree with everything you stated!

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Oh great, pezz is here. Here comes a lot of "FACT" " LEARN THE GAME" LIAR" and other great stuff.

    What does pcm say to you all the time? Once again, you've missed the point.

    It isn't about a magical number of rushes that every team hits and they win. I know zbellino likes to make it seem like that is what im saying as it becomes easier for him to retort but it just isn't the case. It's about this....

    There is a common thread to some of the Patriots' most devastating losses in Bill Belichick's coaching tenure, most of which were of the season-ending variety: The offense was so focused on letting it fly in those games that it struggled to control the line of scrimmage.

    And it's not as if the Patriots can't still pick their spots in the passing game, as a potent running attack can set up lethal play-action possibilities for Tom Brady.

    The Patriots are at their best when the running game is the focal point. 

    Think about what a difference it would have made in some of the painful losses in recent franchise history. 

    But you probably think Mike Reiss is an idiot too. Hey send him one of your diagrams maybe he can wrap his weiii little mind around your Pygmalion theory. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I've had Pezzz on ignore for years now, there's only so many diagrams and pie charts I can read that tell that me the Earth is really flat.. followed by poorly phrased insults of course.

    [/QUOTE]

    LOL!

    Wozzy on a roll!  

    [/QUOTE]


    On a roll?  He thinks the world is flat and you can run till you fall of the edge.

    No chart, that (neither he or you or tc, understand and therefore mock) will ever convince him (you) otherwise.

    Brilliant.  Three peas in a pod.

    Too bad BB disagrees.

    You should ask him about it when you see him tonight.  In your dreams.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    From 2001-2004 we played 9 games in the playoffs, we ran more than our opponent in all but one of those games (which was a blowout) and won them all.

    2005 played 2 games, beat the Jaguars ran the ball more, lost to the Broncos ran the ball less.

    2006 played 3 games, beat the Jests ran the ball more, barely beat the chargers (3points) because we ran less and Brady threw two INT's, before finally losing to the Colts... we ran less.

    2007 we played 3 games and beat the Jags and Chargers, ran more in both games, lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl because we ran less.

    2008 we should have made the playoffs, we ran the ball (4th in the NFL in rushing attempts) and that's why we ranked #1 in first downs, 8th in points, 5th in yards, 5th least INTs, 1st in scoring %, 3rd in time of possession and went 11-6 with a QB who didn't start a single college game.  This is where I believe McDaniels realized running was why he lost the Super Bowl the year prior and dusted off the old playbooks from 2001-2004 to make Cassel successful.

    2009-2011: let's call these the O'Brien years, we got bounced in the first round his first two year against the Ravens and Jests.  The Ravens ran the ball 52 times, we ran 18 times, Kevin Faulk our third down back was our leading rusher with 14 attempts = 33-14 loss at home.  Next year we started Danny Woodhead against the Jests because we thought he would give us an advantage in the passing game, he was our leading rusher with 14 carries even though LawFirm averaged 4.7 YPC... they ran more, we ran less, they ran with their 1A power back, they won.  2011 we played three games, Denver ran more than us because they had to, Tebow sucked and couldn't pass so we won, we ran an equal amount as the Ravens and barely won, the Giants ran more than us in the Super Bowl and we lost.

    2012 we played two games, we ran more than the Texans and won, we ran less than the Ravens (and they knocked our leading rusher the F out) we lost.

    2013 = ?

    In summation, from 2001 to the present day we've played 24 playoff games.  

    We ran as much or more than our opponent in 14 of those games and won them all including three Super Bowl titles.  

    We ran less than our opponent in 10 of those games, we lost all but three of them, getting bounced twice at home and losing two Super Bowls.

    I don't need a pie chart... that says it all.  

    The Ernhardt-Perkins offensive system we employ relies heavily on the run game to set the tone and to beat up our opponent physically.  This is a fact, and though it may have evolved over time the only time tested, tried and true version of this system that has been successful in the playoffs, whether it was The Patriots, the Parcell's Giants, the Bill Cowher Steelers or the Tom Coughlin Giants has been the one grounded in the running game.

    You can argue against history, playoff records, straightforward easy to read stats, but what is undeniable is that the Patriots ran their way to 3 Super Bowl rings and passed their way to 2 losses.

    Those are the facts.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Belichick on running the ball (from today's conference call)

    In response to ccnsd's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pretty impressive stuff, even though I am completely lost on "binary logistic regression."
    Do you do stuff like this for a living? That would take me a month to put together. The charts were easy to follow the rest was a little over my head.

    [/QUOTE]

    Junk science.

    In the words of Belichick himself; "the only stats that matter outside of wins, is points scored and points allowed."

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share