It doesn't add up! (Athletic Article)

[Popeyejones]

A few different things, which I'm going to bullet point, just for ease of reading:

*The basic gist of the article is that in the relationship between run plays + completions and winning, Schotty is confusing the cause for the effect and the effect for the cause. He thinks that the play distributions he wants causes winning but it's the reverse: winning causes the play distributions he's trying to target. Worth noting is that he's not alone in this, as Bill Belichick has made the same mistake in the past.

*The way you get around all of this cause and effect stuff is to look at expected-points-per play for running and passing, which is what people do. And the data on that is very clear: All things being equal pass plays are more effective than run plays. This is partially driven by innovations in passing attacks in the last 20 years, but also explains why almost all teams most of the time are now passing the ball much more than they used to.

*Ben Baldwin isn't an outlier on any of this, so going after him for this is kind of missing the point. Many, many people have studied this, and I'm unaware of anyone who has seriously studied it and not come to the same basic conclusion as Baldwin does.

*If you want to see the consequences of running so much on overall offensive effectiveness, the Seahawks are actually a great example. On a per-play basis last year the Seahawks had the 14th most effective offense in the NFL. That's very middle of the pack, but is only a problem because both in their passing attack AND in their running attack the Seahawks were actually really good. They had the #6 ranked passing attack AND the #6 ranked rushing attack. How do you end up with a Top 6 rushing attack AND passing attack but only end up middle of the pack for overall offensive attack? There's only one way: you're simply rushing the ball way too much and teams with inferior passing and rushing attacks are passing more than you and flying by you in overall offensive effectiveness.

EPA is shite. It isn't an efficiency metric. You aren't trying to score a touchdown on every play. Its skewed towards being clutch. DVOA is a far better efficiency metric.

Russell had by far his best year, the Seahawks had an outstanding year despite mediocre talent, and everyone wont stop saying they should have passed more. Its unbelievable really. It's like nobody watched any of the past three seasons.

Baldwin skews all his stats to match his narrative. Omitting 4th quarter and 4th down runs? Wtf is that? I can make stats look how I want too.

Theres no correlation between running success and play-action success, except Russ was far more efficient and completed at a 3% higher rate last year than the previous two. That's where the "no correlation" crowd goes silent and goes back to try to skew their spreadshseets.

As I recall in #4 I'm referencing DVOA, not EPA, so this argument doesn't really apply. AFAIK this is a finding that's been replicated regardless of which positive outcome you put on the left hand side (winning, DVOA, EPA, etc)

Regarding EPA, it's probablistic based on down, distance, and field position. Saying it's just measuring clutchness doesn't make much sense, given that as far as we can tell, to the degree that clutchness exists at all, if it does exist it doesn't exist enough to warrant talking about.

 

[Popeyejones]

A few different things, which I'm going to bullet point, just for ease of reading:

*The basic gist of the article is that in the relationship between run plays + completions and winning, Schotty is confusing the cause for the effect and the effect for the cause. He thinks that the play distributions he wants causes winning but it's the reverse: winning causes the play distributions he's trying to target. Worth noting is that he's not alone in this, as Bill Belichick has made the same mistake in the past.

*The way you get around all of this cause and effect stuff is to look at expected-points-per play for running and passing, which is what people do. And the data on that is very clear: All things being equal pass plays are more effective than run plays. This is partially driven by innovations in passing attacks in the last 20 years, but also explains why almost all teams most of the time are now passing the ball much more than they used to.

*Ben Baldwin isn't an outlier on any of this, so going after him for this is kind of missing the point. Many, many people have studied this, and I'm unaware of anyone who has seriously studied it and not come to the same basic conclusion as Baldwin does.

*If you want to see the consequences of running so much on overall offensive effectiveness, the Seahawks are actually a great example. On a per-play basis last year the Seahawks had the 14th most effective offense in the NFL. That's very middle of the pack, but is only a problem because both in their passing attack AND in their running attack the Seahawks were actually really good. They had the #6 ranked passing attack AND the #6 ranked rushing attack. How do you end up with a Top 6 rushing attack AND passing attack but only end up middle of the pack for overall offensive attack? There's only one way: you're simply rushing the ball way too much and teams with inferior passing and rushing attacks are passing more than you and flying by you in overall offensive effectiveness.

The data doesn't really support their conclusion that running is bad. It only shows us what happened. It doesn't tell us why it happened. In other words, the data is domain specific but the domain it covers doesn't exist outside of a rigidly organized construct. It has very little applicable transfer to predicting real world success.

It's a tricky concept because non-linearities are hard thing to wrap your head around. People see that two variables are casually linked and assume that a consistent input in one variable will provide a predictable result, but that's not how complex system works.

Absolutely agreed about complex systems. Taking that fact and just packing up and going home is a mistake though.

The classic example of a complex system is weather patterns. Just because it rains in Seattle a lot doesn't mean it will keep on raining in Seattle a lot. If you think that means that everyone in Seattle should just throw away their umbrellas and raincoats because weather is a complex system you're kind of missing the point of the argument though.

 

[knownone]

A few different things, which I'm going to bullet point, just for ease of reading:

*The basic gist of the article is that in the relationship between run plays + completions and winning, Schotty is confusing the cause for the effect and the effect for the cause. He thinks that the play distributions he wants causes winning but it's the reverse: winning causes the play distributions he's trying to target. Worth noting is that he's not alone in this, as Bill Belichick has made the same mistake in the past.

*The way you get around all of this cause and effect stuff is to look at expected-points-per play for running and passing, which is what people do. And the data on that is very clear: All things being equal pass plays are more effective than run plays. This is partially driven by innovations in passing attacks in the last 20 years, but also explains why almost all teams most of the time are now passing the ball much more than they used to.

*Ben Baldwin isn't an outlier on any of this, so going after him for this is kind of missing the point. Many, many people have studied this, and I'm unaware of anyone who has seriously studied it and not come to the same basic conclusion as Baldwin does.

*If you want to see the consequences of running so much on overall offensive effectiveness, the Seahawks are actually a great example. On a per-play basis last year the Seahawks had the 14th most effective offense in the NFL. That's very middle of the pack, but is only a problem because both in their passing attack AND in their running attack the Seahawks were actually really good. They had the #6 ranked passing attack AND the #6 ranked rushing attack. How do you end up with a Top 6 rushing attack AND passing attack but only end up middle of the pack for overall offensive attack? There's only one way: you're simply rushing the ball way too much and teams with inferior passing and rushing attacks are passing more than you and flying by you in overall offensive effectiveness.

The data doesn't really support their conclusion that running is bad. It only shows us what happened. It doesn't tell us why it happened. In other words, the data is domain specific but the domain it covers doesn't exist outside of a rigidly organized construct. It has very little applicable transfer to predicting real world success.

It's a tricky concept because non-linearities are hard thing to wrap your head around. People see that two variables are casually linked and assume that a consistent input in one variable will provide a predictable result, but that's not how complex system works.

Absolutely agreed about complex systems. Taking that fact and just packing up and going home is a mistake though.

The classic example of a complex system is weather patterns. Just because it rains in Seattle a lot doesn't mean it will keep on raining in Seattle a lot. If you think that means that everyone in Seattle should just throw away their umbrellas and raincoats because weather is a complex system you're kind of missing the point of the argument though.

In my opinion, the author is using weather patterns to tell us which days are best to bring an umbrella abstract of the complexities within the system. It doesn't actually tell us what the most efficient strategy for not getting wet is, it tells us what the likelihood of getting wet on a particular day at some point in the past was. You can certainly model it and find a pattern that is the most efficient historically, but can it be applied practically with effective results?

Here's a simple top down question: Can the passing game stay as efficient if more teams are using it and more teams adapt to defending it, or at some point do we arrive at the conjugate where the running game becomes more efficient than the passing game? If the author can't provide data to answer that question, they should not be accusing others of 'relying on bad math' because their own math doesn't prove that accusation to be true.

Keep in mind, I don't have any problem with the article or the thought process the author is using, it's interesting. I just don't think it tells us anything more than an opinion with a bit more credibility because they have data to back up their opinion.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Here's a simple top down question: Can the passing game stay as efficient if more teams are using it and more teams adapt to defending it, or at some point do we arrive at the conjugate where the running game becomes more efficient than the passing game? If the author can't provide data to answer that question, they should not be accusing others of 'relying on bad math' because their own math doesn't prove that accusation to be true.

That's exactly my angle. Construct a team to pass more than run, and it leaves responding and adapting defenses susceptible to...that's right...the run. Everything's a moving target. It also creates a market imbalance in favor of run defenders becoming much cheaper and easier to attain. I just named two factors that were VERY heavily cited - positively - as key players in Pete and John's ascension to the top of the NFL ladder. When they were winning, that is. Funny how it all goes away when struggles happen.

Another thing Baldwin doesn't grasp is that no coach, anywhere, in the history, present, or future of the NFL, will ever "play the numbers" on any given play call. They're not going to call a pass or a run based on "well, we need to be hitting a 60-40 ratio and we ran last time, so...". They don't think like that. They make their calls based on, not just game situation and down and distance, but the strength of their own personnel, what they know their OL and skill position players can and cannot do, what hamstring their OG thinks he might have just incurred, what that TE is struggling with, and just as important, what he knows of the defense and its strengths and weaknesses and who/where they want to be targeting. There are dozens of factors playing into a head coach's decisions on any given play. They think in the moment. They have to.

So I'm not sure why people expect Pete to do otherwise.

 

[Jville]

Echoes of Buddy Ryan ....... what goes around comes around.

Or ...... is it what comes around goes around?

......... in any case trends trace a big circle.

Collection and analysis of stats produce trailing indicators ..... past tense.

The source of leading indicators is human resourcefulness ..... future tense.

 

[AgentDib]

A few different things, which I'm going to bullet point, just for ease of reading:

*The basic gist of the article is that in the relationship between run plays + completions and winning, Schotty is confusing the cause for the effect and the effect for the cause. He thinks that the play distributions he wants causes winning but it's the reverse: winning causes the play distributions he's trying to target. Worth noting is that he's not alone in this, as Bill Belichick has made the same mistake in the past.

*The way you get around all of this cause and effect stuff is to look at expected-points-per play for running and passing, which is what people do. And the data on that is very clear: All things being equal pass plays are more effective than run plays. This is partially driven by innovations in passing attacks in the last 20 years, but also explains why almost all teams most of the time are now passing the ball much more than they used to.

*Ben Baldwin isn't an outlier on any of this, so going after him for this is kind of missing the point. Many, many people have studied this, and I'm unaware of anyone who has seriously studied it and not come to the same basic conclusion as Baldwin does.

*If you want to see the consequences of running so much on overall offensive effectiveness, the Seahawks are actually a great example. On a per-play basis last year the Seahawks had the 14th most effective offense in the NFL. That's very middle of the pack, but is only a problem because both in their passing attack AND in their running attack the Seahawks were actually really good. They had the #6 ranked passing attack AND the #6 ranked rushing attack. How do you end up with a Top 6 rushing attack AND passing attack but only end up middle of the pack for overall offensive attack? There's only one way: you're simply rushing the ball way too much and teams with inferior passing and rushing attacks are passing more than you and flying by you in overall offensive effectiveness.

Thank you for the summary I couldn't bring myself to do. You nailed it!

Looks like you found another conclusion you agreed with.

You wouldn't know it from the box scores but there was talent on the Kansas City defense last year. They were still winning games 42-37 and losing them 43-40 because offensive and defensive performance are linked in a complicated manner that even DVOA doesn't account for.

 

[mrt144]

A few different things, which I'm going to bullet point, just for ease of reading:

*The basic gist of the article is that in the relationship between run plays + completions and winning, Schotty is confusing the cause for the effect and the effect for the cause. He thinks that the play distributions he wants causes winning but it's the reverse: winning causes the play distributions he's trying to target. Worth noting is that he's not alone in this, as Bill Belichick has made the same mistake in the past.

*The way you get around all of this cause and effect stuff is to look at expected-points-per play for running and passing, which is what people do. And the data on that is very clear: All things being equal pass plays are more effective than run plays. This is partially driven by innovations in passing attacks in the last 20 years, but also explains why almost all teams most of the time are now passing the ball much more than they used to.

*Ben Baldwin isn't an outlier on any of this, so going after him for this is kind of missing the point. Many, many people have studied this, and I'm unaware of anyone who has seriously studied it and not come to the same basic conclusion as Baldwin does.

*If you want to see the consequences of running so much on overall offensive effectiveness, the Seahawks are actually a great example. On a per-play basis last year the Seahawks had the 14th most effective offense in the NFL. That's very middle of the pack, but is only a problem because both in their passing attack AND in their running attack the Seahawks were actually really good. They had the #6 ranked passing attack AND the #6 ranked rushing attack. How do you end up with a Top 6 rushing attack AND passing attack but only end up middle of the pack for overall offensive attack? There's only one way: you're simply rushing the ball way too much and teams with inferior passing and rushing attacks are passing more than you and flying by you in overall offensive effectiveness.

Thank you for the summary I couldn't bring myself to do. You nailed it!

Looks like you found another conclusion you agreed with.

You wouldn't know it from the box scores but there was talent on the Kansas City defense last year. They were still winning games 42-37 and losing them 43-40 because offensive and defensive performance are linked in a complicated manner that even DVOA doesn't account for.

Kudos on identifying why I shared the article. I think it is worth sharing because I agree with it. I too, am a frail human.


Seriously though, the point of most analytical writing in sports is to provide critique and insight. The critique is of the stated public approach that our OC takes using some light data analysis to debase the logic of those stated reasons. Does this rationale make sense? Lets see if it does.

What does KC have to do with the Hawks. I dont have a plan of action or any desire for change to be more like the Chiefs. What will be will be. It is out of our hands and we have no agency.

This just helps explain what we see a bit more. Like running into stacked boxes.

FWIW I have tried on numerous occasions to find professionally written articles anywhere, but especially recently in the slack of off season, that paint Schotty in a positive light. I accept my prior statement but most articles are critique and insight but almost all apologetics rest in user chat. There are perilous few professional articles that come to the conclusion that "Schotty is blowing down the houses as OC with his stated approach" but I am looking.

 

[mrt144]

A few different things, which I'm going to bullet point, just for ease of reading:

*The basic gist of the article is that in the relationship between run plays + completions and winning, Schotty is confusing the cause for the effect and the effect for the cause. He thinks that the play distributions he wants causes winning but it's the reverse: winning causes the play distributions he's trying to target. Worth noting is that he's not alone in this, as Bill Belichick has made the same mistake in the past.

*The way you get around all of this cause and effect stuff is to look at expected-points-per play for running and passing, which is what people do. And the data on that is very clear: All things being equal pass plays are more effective than run plays. This is partially driven by innovations in passing attacks in the last 20 years, but also explains why almost all teams most of the time are now passing the ball much more than they used to.

*Ben Baldwin isn't an outlier on any of this, so going after him for this is kind of missing the point. Many, many people have studied this, and I'm unaware of anyone who has seriously studied it and not come to the same basic conclusion as Baldwin does.

*If you want to see the consequences of running so much on overall offensive effectiveness, the Seahawks are actually a great example. On a per-play basis last year the Seahawks had the 14th most effective offense in the NFL. That's very middle of the pack, but is only a problem because both in their passing attack AND in their running attack the Seahawks were actually really good. They had the #6 ranked passing attack AND the #6 ranked rushing attack. How do you end up with a Top 6 rushing attack AND passing attack but only end up middle of the pack for overall offensive attack? There's only one way: you're simply rushing the ball way too much and teams with inferior passing and rushing attacks are passing more than you and flying by you in overall offensive effectiveness.

The data doesn't really support their conclusion that running is bad. It only shows us what happened. It doesn't tell us why it happened. In other words, the data is domain specific but the domain it covers doesn't exist outside of a rigidly organized construct. It has very little applicable transfer to predicting real world success.

It's a tricky concept because non-linearities are hard thing to wrap your head around. People see that two variables are casually linked and assume that a consistent input in one variable will provide a predictable result, but that's not how complex system works.

Absolutely agreed about complex systems. Taking that fact and just packing up and going home is a mistake though.

The classic example of a complex system is weather patterns. Just because it rains in Seattle a lot doesn't mean it will keep on raining in Seattle a lot. If you think that means that everyone in Seattle should just throw away their umbrellas and raincoats because weather is a complex system you're kind of missing the point of the argument though.

In my opinion, the author is using weather patterns to tell us which days are best to bring an umbrella abstract of the complexities within the system. It doesn't actually tell us what the most efficient strategy for not getting wet is, it tells us what the likelihood of getting wet on a particular day at some point in the past was. You can certainly model it and find a pattern that is the most efficient historically, but can it be applied practically with effective results?

Here's a simple top down question: Can the passing game stay as efficient if more teams are using it and more teams adapt to defending it, or at some point do we arrive at the conjugate where the running game becomes more efficient than the passing game? If the author can't provide data to answer that question, they should not be accusing others of 'relying on bad math' because their own math doesn't prove that accusation to be true.

Keep in mind, I don't have any problem with the article or the thought process the author is using, it's interesting. I just don't think it tells us anything more than an opinion with a bit more credibility because they have data to back up their opinion.

I know it isnt quite kosher to answer a question with a question, but what if doing better than status quo isnt predicated on identifying a discrete equilibrium or optimal point (which is already more nuanced than the stated public rationale of our OC) but rather based on finding the team's own equilibrium for the talent in the stable. Know thyself.

Instead of asking the team to conform to a specific paradigm like the Chiefs, the question could instead focus on 'are we optimizing our own passing game to the respective talents and game situatuon better or worse than other teams.' What are the limits of the league and how close are we to them? What is currently possible in the league and are the Hawks seizing their share from the table? This seems to be digestible and more straight forward.

There would be a lot to unpack there. How do you build a framework to determine better or worse (there are some), in what ways are the Hawks better or worse, how do you identify the parts and components that contribute, how much film is needed to buttress data? A lot. But this is what the patchwork of current work strives for at least.

There isnt a lot out there suggesting that the Hawks are in their own equilibrium or optimization which the article alludes to with the sum being less than the parts, I think at least

I am excited to see what happens next season and how the team approaches it. There are changes happening about what is possible and valuable all the time in the league and we will see how the Hawks tap into that.

 

[Tical21]

A few different things, which I'm going to bullet point, just for ease of reading:

*The basic gist of the article is that in the relationship between run plays + completions and winning, Schotty is confusing the cause for the effect and the effect for the cause. He thinks that the play distributions he wants causes winning but it's the reverse: winning causes the play distributions he's trying to target. Worth noting is that he's not alone in this, as Bill Belichick has made the same mistake in the past.

*The way you get around all of this cause and effect stuff is to look at expected-points-per play for running and passing, which is what people do. And the data on that is very clear: All things being equal pass plays are more effective than run plays. This is partially driven by innovations in passing attacks in the last 20 years, but also explains why almost all teams most of the time are now passing the ball much more than they used to.

*Ben Baldwin isn't an outlier on any of this, so going after him for this is kind of missing the point. Many, many people have studied this, and I'm unaware of anyone who has seriously studied it and not come to the same basic conclusion as Baldwin does.

*If you want to see the consequences of running so much on overall offensive effectiveness, the Seahawks are actually a great example. On a per-play basis last year the Seahawks had the 14th most effective offense in the NFL. That's very middle of the pack, but is only a problem because both in their passing attack AND in their running attack the Seahawks were actually really good. They had the #6 ranked passing attack AND the #6 ranked rushing attack. How do you end up with a Top 6 rushing attack AND passing attack but only end up middle of the pack for overall offensive attack? There's only one way: you're simply rushing the ball way too much and teams with inferior passing and rushing attacks are passing more than you and flying by you in overall offensive effectiveness.

Thank you for the summary I couldn't bring myself to do. You nailed it!

Looks like you found another conclusion you agreed with.

You wouldn't know it from the box scores but there was talent on the Kansas City defense last year. They were still winning games 42-37 and losing them 43-40 because offensive and defensive performance are linked in a complicated manner that even DVOA doesn't account for.

Kudos on identifying why I shared the article. I think it is worth sharing because I agree with it. I too, am a frail human.


Seriously though, the point of most analytical writing in sports is to provide critique and insight. The critique is of the stated public approach that our OC takes using some light data analysis to debase the logic of those stated reasons. Does this rationale make sense? Lets see if it does.

What does KC have to do with the Hawks. I dont have a plan of action or any desire for change to be more like the Chiefs. What will be will be. It is out of our hands and we have no agency.

This just helps explain what we see a bit more. Like running into stacked boxes.

FWIW I have tried on numerous occasions to find professionally written articles anywhere, but especially recently in the slack of off season, that paint Schotty in a positive light. I accept my prior statement but most articles are critique and insight but almost all apologetics rest in user chat. There are perilous few professional articles that come to the conclusion that "Schotty is blowing down the houses as OC with his stated approach" but I am looking.

You're trying too hard. Russ had his most efficient season ever and we were a top 6 offense. With mediocre talent. If that isn't "blowing down houses", I'm not sure what is.
Go ahead, pass a bunch more. Like in 16 and 17. See how far that gets you.

 

[Tical21]

A few different things, which I'm going to bullet point, just for ease of reading:

*The basic gist of the article is that in the relationship between run plays + completions and winning, Schotty is confusing the cause for the effect and the effect for the cause. He thinks that the play distributions he wants causes winning but it's the reverse: winning causes the play distributions he's trying to target. Worth noting is that he's not alone in this, as Bill Belichick has made the same mistake in the past.

*The way you get around all of this cause and effect stuff is to look at expected-points-per play for running and passing, which is what people do. And the data on that is very clear: All things being equal pass plays are more effective than run plays. This is partially driven by innovations in passing attacks in the last 20 years, but also explains why almost all teams most of the time are now passing the ball much more than they used to.

*Ben Baldwin isn't an outlier on any of this, so going after him for this is kind of missing the point. Many, many people have studied this, and I'm unaware of anyone who has seriously studied it and not come to the same basic conclusion as Baldwin does.

*If you want to see the consequences of running so much on overall offensive effectiveness, the Seahawks are actually a great example. On a per-play basis last year the Seahawks had the 14th most effective offense in the NFL. That's very middle of the pack, but is only a problem because both in their passing attack AND in their running attack the Seahawks were actually really good. They had the #6 ranked passing attack AND the #6 ranked rushing attack. How do you end up with a Top 6 rushing attack AND passing attack but only end up middle of the pack for overall offensive attack? There's only one way: you're simply rushing the ball way too much and teams with inferior passing and rushing attacks are passing more than you and flying by you in overall offensive effectiveness.

EPA is shite. It isn't an efficiency metric. You aren't trying to score a touchdown on every play. Its skewed towards being clutch. DVOA is a far better efficiency metric.

Russell had by far his best year, the Seahawks had an outstanding year despite mediocre talent, and everyone wont stop saying they should have passed more. Its unbelievable really. It's like nobody watched any of the past three seasons.

Baldwin skews all his stats to match his narrative. Omitting 4th quarter and 4th down runs? Wtf is that? I can make stats look how I want too.

Theres no correlation between running success and play-action success, except Russ was far more efficient and completed at a 3% higher rate last year than the previous two. That's where the "no correlation" crowd goes silent and goes back to try to skew their spreadshseets.

As I recall in #4 I'm referencing DVOA, not EPA, so this argument doesn't really apply. AFAIK this is a finding that's been replicated regardless of which positive outcome you put on the left hand side (winning, DVOA, EPA, etc)

Regarding EPA, it's probablistic based on down, distance, and field position. Saying it's just measuring clutchness doesn't make much sense, given that as far as we can tell, to the degree that clutchness exists at all, if it does exist it doesn't exist enough to warrant talking about.

Converting a 3rd and 7 is far better for your EPA than converting a 3rd and 3. Being inefficient benefits your EPA.

 

[mrt144]

Thank you for the summary I couldn't bring myself to do. You nailed it!

Looks like you found another conclusion you agreed with.

You wouldn't know it from the box scores but there was talent on the Kansas City defense last year. They were still winning games 42-37 and losing them 43-40 because offensive and defensive performance are linked in a complicated manner that even DVOA doesn't account for.

Kudos on identifying why I shared the article. I think it is worth sharing because I agree with it. I too, am a frail human.


Seriously though, the point of most analytical writing in sports is to provide critique and insight. The critique is of the stated public approach that our OC takes using some light data analysis to debase the logic of those stated reasons. Does this rationale make sense? Lets see if it does.

What does KC have to do with the Hawks. I dont have a plan of action or any desire for change to be more like the Chiefs. What will be will be. It is out of our hands and we have no agency.

This just helps explain what we see a bit more. Like running into stacked boxes.

FWIW I have tried on numerous occasions to find professionally written articles anywhere, but especially recently in the slack of off season, that paint Schotty in a positive light. I accept my prior statement but most articles are critique and insight but almost all apologetics rest in user chat. There are perilous few professional articles that come to the conclusion that "Schotty is blowing down the houses as OC with his stated approach" but I am looking.

You're trying too hard. Russ had his most efficient season ever and we were a top 6 offense. With mediocre talent. If that isn't "blowing down houses", I'm not sure what is.
Go ahead, pass a bunch more. Like in 16 and 17. See how far that gets you.

You know, if you're just going to ignore what I wrote or haphazardly interpret it to suit your own strawman making ends, I'll just keep you on ignore.

First, I support a framework that suggests there are upper and lower limits to optimal passing game that factors in available talent. Between these limits of 1/17 passes and 16/17 passes is where the population of NFL teams exists and to maximize their own offensive output, they can marginally adjust.

Second, I am resigned to dispassionate observation at this point. I just want to understand what is happening little bit by little bit. I have no agency in what the team does and as such I am not going to share opinions on what I think should be done. What's the point? What I can do is contextualize what I'm seeing with some small analysis and writing.

Third, everything I observed about the Hawks last season under Schotty's first year in the seat seems to suggest we don't have nearly the bare cupboard imagined to seize what is available and possible in the NFL. It isn't about wholesale change in approach, it's about marginal changes to seize opportunity.

Fourth and this is the biggest, nobody, no team, can do what they think isn't possible. No person or team will do what they think can't be done. For example, I don't see how the OL under Solari is incapable of providing stout run blocking and supporting passes a bit more situationally. I don't think RW is incapable of a marginal situational increase of passing nor are the WRs incapable in holding up their end. Tight Ends, okay, you got me but Dissly might be a ray of light. Nor do I see Schotty as incapable of doing the work that would allow the Hawks to seize the opportunity that exists in the passing game. Nor do I see Pete incapable of making a small change at the right time with his breadth of experience and intuition.

I believe marginal improvements are absolutely possible with the actors and factors. It's about willpower and taking a step back to actually shoot for that marginal improvement. Whether they do or not is 'whatever'. What will be will be. But we have some fun tools and writers to understand the picture a wee bit more and see where the Hawks fit into the picture. We are so divorced from agency in the situation that's the best we can do.

The position opposite of mine is that the Hawks are already doing their best and there is no room for improvement. Or that improvement rests on the incoming draft class and FA and trades and that's it. Everything from position coach on up is optimal. That seems a curious incurious position.

 

[AgentDib]

Kudos on identifying why I shared the article. I think it is worth sharing because I agree with it....

You don't see a problem with sharing articles because you agree with their conclusions rather than because they have strong arguments?

What does KC have to do with the Hawks.

Presumably you agree that teams should run the ball sometimes and pass the ball at other times. There are advantages and drawbacks to both, and crucially the efficiency of each is linked to the other. All NFL teams are somewhere in the middle of the pass-run spectrum, and the foundation of your discontent is that the Hawks are on the high end of that compared to their peers. Be honest with yourself for a minute - would you feel that we should pass more if we were #32 in rushing percentage? Maybe you'd be arguing for more runs and this is really about not being comfortable with being an outlier.

KC is one of those peers on the other end of the spectrum (61% pass-39% run) that clearly show the downside to moving too far in that direction. If you don't see what that has to do with the discussion then you're completely missing the link between offense-defense that causes many people to shrug at overly reductive offensive statistics used as a surrogate for winning %.

Everybody with the interest in football to post on forums like these in the off-season long ago noticed that YPA far exceeds YPC. Yet even the most pass happy NFL team runs the ball 1/3 of the time or more, so presumably there are some good reasons why it's worth taking a lower expected return on a given play in order to increase the chance of winning the game down the road. How many of these reasons are captured in YPA-YPC or EPA? Most of us would argue very few.

 

[mrt144]

Kudos on identifying why I shared the article. I think it is worth sharing because I agree with it....

You don't see a problem with sharing articles because you agree with their conclusions rather than because they have strong arguments?

What does KC have to do with the Hawks.

Presumably you agree that teams should run the ball sometimes and pass the ball at other times. There are advantages and drawbacks to both, and crucially the efficiency of each is linked to the other. All NFL teams are somewhere in the middle of the pass-run spectrum, and the foundation of your discontent is that the Hawks are on the high end of that compared to their peers. KC is one of those peers on the other end of the spectrum (61% pass-39% run) that clearly show the downside to moving too far in that direction. If you don't see what that has to do with the discussion then you're completely missing the link between offense-defense that causes many people to shrug at overly reductive offensive statistics used as a surrogate for winning %.

Everybody with the interest in football to post on forums like these in the off-season long ago noticed that YPA far exceeds YPC. Yet even the most pass happy NFL team runs the ball 1/3 of the time or more, so presumably there are some good reasons why it's worth taking a lower expected return on a given play in order to increase the chance of winning the game down the road. How many of these reasons are captured in YPA-YPC or EPA? Most of us would argue very few.

The silence of professionals who show their work that carry water for the status quo is deafening, actually.

And I think I've fleshed out my position capably enough for an impartial observer to think that I want to see what our optimized solution looks like. Not KC's not NO's not anyone else's haphazardly applied to what we have here. Again, marginal adjustments to the overall plan, not a wholesale dismemberment and reconfiguration of the plan to be KC's plan. I've abandoned any desire to see that because it's a hand wave of "if everything was different it might work better". That's nonsense. Things don't need to be drastically different.

Again, we have a composite picture of what is possible in today's NFL. There need not be a sea change in approach nor will there be. Just small marginal improvements across the board that seize upon what is available and possible in the NFL. I get the grudging sense that there is resistance to these marginal changes because it is unimaginable for various reasons - we don't have the horses, that's not how we do things, it isn't worth making a marginal improvement because of the unknown potential drawbacks (or known ones like our defense can't support an offense that tries to score points at a steady clip.) There are a thousand reasons not to do something. This is a fact of life - we talk ourselves out of trying to do better by laying out all the reasons trying will not work.

But like the great Earth Wind and Fire sang: You won't find out if you never try. So let's see if the Hawks try to marginally improve how they conduct their offense to seize the opportunity established by their peers in the NFL. What do the Hawks have to lose by pushing themselves out of a comfort zone and taking what's shown to be there for the taking? The dogmatic insistence on rushing to retain possession and draw down time and thus subsequently draw down the amount of possessions in a game will be available.

I don't even think the notion of limiting the absolute amount of possessions of a game is a bad one, it just rests on having a team that can maximize the value of their possessions (or crush their opponent's) better than the opponent does in kind. With less opportunity for variance, the limited shots you take need to land.

 

[Jville]

Sorry for the interruption ......... I wanted to comment that diversity of opinion enriches and grows our forum.

If we didn't already have so many forums, I would be inclined to suggest a forum focused on debate over the use and misuse of statistics and the propagation of divergent inferences. There certainly seems to be a thirst for the subject. It keeps showing up. Just don't know how that would read in a space that benefits from maintaining a layman's hierarchy of conversation so as to appeal to a wide spectrum of fans.

If anyone has any ideas, fill free to PM the administrators. I suspect their in-basket would be open to the subject.

Meanwhile ........ back to enjoyment of this thread.

Carry on everyone :2thumbs:

 

[AgentDib]

The silence of professionals who show their work that carry water for the status quo is deafening, actually.

NFL teams hire statisticians, they just don't share their opinions for free on the internet. What you are really noticing is applicable to most macro-economic fields. The complicated solution is too difficult to reduce cleanly and so assumptions are liberally applied until the complexities shake out. The final result is then simple enough to be politicized while the few people who understand how the sausage was made post cautions about treating it cautiously due to the assumptions present. The fact that NFL teams continue to run the football after all of the resources and effort they spend on strategy that they keep private should at the minimum lead to some self-reflection on this argument.

Things don't need to be drastically different... I get the grudging sense that there is resistance to these marginal changes because it is unimaginable for various reasons...

I don't think anybody is concerned that the changes you propose are too radical. You just haven't made a convincing argument that they are in the correct direction.

Out of the top 10 RUSH% teams last season, 8 of them had double digit wins and the 9th still had a winning season.

But like the great Earth Wind and Fire sang: You won't find out if you never try.

This is exactly why we need to look at other teams and other seasons while keeping sample size in mind. We don't have a luxury of a time machine to re-run 2018 with different RUSH% assumptions, and iterating in potentially the wrong direction just for the sake of a "test" is a non-starter in the real world.

What do the Hawks have to lose by... taking what's shown to be there for the taking?

Here's a thought experiment for you. Take your favorite simplified statistic that shows the superiority of passing. If you really believed it then why would you not argue that the correct RUSH% is 0%? I don't think it's a lack of courage, but that you would realize the complexities lost along the way to arrive at that statistic are important.

 

[AgentDib]

Just to add on a couple of charts.


R2 value in this context can be (over)simplified to "how much of the Y statistic is explained by the X statistic".

The following charts show that PPG is neutral with PASS% while opponent's PPG increases.

Of course, that doesn't prove that passing is bad or running is good because the one correct thing in the linked article is that correlation does not equal causation. The complexity here is that teams tend to pass more when they are losing and run out the clock when they are winning.

That being said, if teams across the NFL were running too often then you would not expect these charts. EPA, AYD, AY/A would all suggest a sharply downward sloping WINS vs RUN% chart but the reality is just more complicated. In simple terms rushing improves the efficiency of the passing attack and the efficiency of the defense. In the complicated analysis that NFL teams are actually performing they are looking at specific individual plays and how they integrate, set up, and/or detract from other specific individual plays.

 

[mrt144]

What do the Hawks have to lose by... taking what's shown to be there for the taking?

Here's a thought experiment for you. Take your favorite simplified statistic that shows the superiority of passing. If you really believed it then why would you not argue that the correct RUSH% is 0%? I don't think it's a lack of courage, but that you would realize the complexities lost along the way to arrive at that statistic are important.

Well there's an underlying rationale that suggests pursuing tactics to the limit does not yield optimal outcomes for the respective teams based on their player composition and strategic and tactical pillars from the coaching staff.

Again, the NFL at large is providing a suggestion that passing is that much more valuable than rushing. The question really is about how much deadweight loss each team experiences discretely in how they accept that and take action on it. It is a complex thing but it's not an inaccessible thing. The article itself states clearly that there is no 'point' of correct amount of plays or that there is a correct amount of passing or rushing. One can use that same rationale to see that there isn't a 'point' for optimal amount of passing plays or rushing plays in aggregate, rather, it's about focusing on what is right for the team itself.

In my estimation, the magic number rationale publicly stated is not useful or informative towards diving the right mix for the Hawks (and just the Hawks). In my estimation, there are discrete things we see on the field that suggest this rationale does override the right mix of calls for the Hawks and this is buttressed a bit by what tools we do have available.

Let me ask this: If you and others were trying to divine a methodology for assessing what the right mix of rushing and passing is for each NFL team, where would you start? What would the framework look like? Don't be shy.

 

[Scorpion05]

My general rule in life is that when the world zigs, it's usually smart to zag. Not completely, and not to an extent that it completely compromises your life. But when it comes to business, buying homes, etc., it's usually smart to do things a little differently.

In this case, it's becoming a passing league. Which means, defenses are gearing up to stop the pass. They're no longer built to get punched in the mouth by a power running game, they're built for finesse. Nose tackles are becoming extinct.

When you can find the perfect balance, and have an elite QB to exploit teams in the air at the same time, you have a great recipe. I guarantee you, if we win a Super Bowl, EVERY TEAM in the league will be trying to adopt to a power running game. Copy cat league, no one thinks outside the box

Look at Sean McVay. He comes into the league and everyone wants him. Then he gets embarassed by Belicheck and a power running game. Brady barely did a thing. Say what you want about Pete, he has never been completely punked by Belicheck. We lost that last Super Bowl because of Butler's instincts, and arguably a risky playcall

 

[mrt144]

My general rule in life is that when the world zigs, it's usually smart to zag. Not completely, and not to an extent that it completely compromises your life. But when it comes to business, buying homes, etc., it's usually smart to do things a little differently.

In this case, it's becoming a passing league. Which means, defenses are gearing up to stop the pass. They're no longer built to get punched in the mouth by a power running game, they're built for finesse. Nose tackles are becoming extinct.

When you can find the perfect balance, and have an elite QB to exploit teams in the air at the same time, you have a great recipe. I guarantee you, if we win a Super Bowl, EVERY TEAM in the league will be trying to adopt to a power running game. Copy cat league, no one thinks outside the box

Look at Sean McVay. He comes into the league and everyone wants him. Then he gets embarassed by Belicheck and a power running game. Brady barely did a thing. Say what you want about Pete, he has never been completely punked by Belicheck. We lost that last Super Bowl because of Butler's instincts, and arguably a risky playcall

Well to hold the example of McVay, does one game disrepute what he has done so far? Is getting pantsed by the best in the biz a millstone that discredits what he has achieved so far? I don't think so and the benefit McVay has is time and aging/turnover which is definitely at hand.

Just as RW is starting to get the deserved shine for being the solid QB he is through his aged comparison peers retiring, McVay could potentially enjoy the same benefit as the guys who have his number leave the stage and do so with a good pantsing for him to learn from.

Also, absolutely there is potential benefit in being contrarian but it must be sewn with excellence. Simply being contrarian to trend doesn't create positive results. My personal experience with financial markets has reinforced that - I can be right about a trend and operate contra to that trend but if I don't do it excellently I will miss out on returns OR I might not even eek out a return because the contrarian expression was the wrong one at the wrong time.

So again, I'm led back to the question - if we reject all the different ways to build a composite picture that there is room for improvement in doing the respective aspects of the offense the way the Hawks do it, what is another way to evaluate what the Hawks are doing where we can layer different inferences together that shows "there is no room for improvement at the management/coaching level, just has to be players making plays" It seems that once you start trying to integrate more than three or four different notions, there is room for improvement.

Or even more wild, is there a way to discombobulate player talent from coaching directive so the basis of 'this is exactly how the team at hand should be playing their talent hand to greatest effect?'

It's just really hard to wrap my head around the notion that the team is where it absolutely should be in terms of offensive productivity and efficacy. I don't think there's a greater harm in falsifying that notion because ultimately, our work isn't going to change who the coaching staff is and what they do. We can just see if we have a model that explains outcomes a wee bit more than yesterday and maybe glean something from it to apply to our daily lives.

 

[AgentDib]

There's room for improvement in every aspect, including coaching. Every successive NFL year demonstrates that across the board and the 2019 Cardinals would wreck the 1985 Bears. I don't think anybody is arguing here that the coaching staff is infallible. 53 "completions + runs" is a meaningless number but you and Baldwin have the causation backwards here; in reality Pete just likes that number because it supports his run philosophy.

I may be misinterpreting your argument but I believe you are arguing for an overall decrease in the run/pass ratio. You haven't made the case why that is an improvement. The charts I added are not conclusive proof but don't suggest we should rush less, and the best two teams in our conference were also in the top 10 in RUSH% (Rams, Saints).

Let me ask this: If you and others were trying to divine a methodology for assessing what the right mix of rushing and passing is for each NFL team, where would you start? What would the framework look like? Don't be shy.

First, it's very clear to me that there are many ways of skinning a cat in the NFL but what is the most important is that your FO and coaching staff are on the same page. Players need to be acquired to fit what the coaching staff is trying to do, and the coaching staff needs to adapt their philosophy to suit the players that they do have rather than the ones they'd like to have. On this front I think the Seahawks are doing an excellent job and the players we are bringing in are well suited to our balanced approach. Pete is a defensive minded guy and it plays into our strengths to embrace that. When Pete retires our philosophy could (and should) change dramatically to suit what our next head coach is best at.

Second, there are a few nuances that need to be acknowledged:
-- Some runs function a lot like passes (high ceiling low floor) and some passes function a lot like runs (high floor low ceiling). Jet sweeps are really low variance passes while screen passes are really high variance runs.
-- Game situation (score/down/distance) plays an increasingly large factor as the game continues. In the fourth quarter is often obvious if we are trying to eat clock or minimize clock. As a result, the balance that we are really talking about is first half rush/pass ratios.
-- Our strategy should be tailored to counter the opponent's personnel and philosophy. Against our division opponents in 2019 I think we should play the 49ers to our average, pass a bit more against the Cardinals, and run a bit more against the Rams (last in opposing YPC). Of course I could be completely wrong on that and change my opinion over course of the season as we see how the off-season changes translate into 2019 execution. In particular, I could see my opinion of the Rams secondary deteriorate if Rapp struggles as a rookie and Peters continues to have off games.

All that being said, I think the Seahawks would be well served to continue to lean on their defense in 2019 with lots of early low variance plays: rushing, screen passes, short passes. I view Russ as one of the most efficient QBs in the NFL who can be relied on to convert third and reasonables. I also think a very important psychological key to Pete's defense is keeping them in manageable siutations so he can build their confidence (or feed their egos depending on how you view things). In order to keep the defense from keying on the line of scrimmage we will need to pepper the offense with corner/go/fade routes which on paper seem very strong with our current personnel.