Re: Interesting article on 1 vs 2 RB sets
Yeah no prob. When I chart for FO, they produce the stats each week for all the teams in a very easy format to cut up. The stats are all publicly available somewhere, but I think they've got a bunch of macros which pull a lot of it out of text-based replay calls. Honestly I'm not really sure where they get it or how they chop it up. But I download the Excel file each week, save it in full, then save a duplicate with just the halves/games I need to chart.
Originally Posted by srobert96
I can add to it from there. So for instance, they don't have 3rd and long scenarios. They show it's 3rd down, they show there's 8 yards to go. I just write If statements in an added column to say that if it's 3 or fewer, call it short; if it's 4-7, call it medium and if it's 8+, call it long. I can then easily change that formula to adjust if you'd rather consider long as 7+ or as 9+...the data's very easy to cut up in that format. I pivot it to get all the stat break-downs.
I get that, but I don't buy it. I don't believe that running an additional 50 pass plays on 1st/2nd down when they've run 427 will make that difference. I don't believe that practicing for a 6% shift in run/pass on 1st/2nd down would really make that difference either. And while you can extrapolate that if it does make a difference and helps improve the offense, you can very easily argue that running more sub-optimal passing plays for an offense learning how to pass when they're not good at it, will result in more 3rd and long situations, fewer conversions, shortened drives, fewer overall plays, and thus instead of 822 plays on 1st and 2nd down, they instead have 800 1st and 2nd down plays. And so arguing they should have passed on 58.0% of their plays (by saying they should have passed 50 additional plays) instead results in 464 passing plays, or an increase in passing plays of only 37 over the 427 they ran. All that with less offensive production, fewer points, probably fewer wins.
Originally Posted by JimZipCode
Ultimately I don't think it makes sense to argue. The Ravens threw the ball plenty last year. I don't understand why people are trying to turn them into Green Bay, throwing close to 60% of the time, in an offense where we have two of the better runners and a passer with receivers that don't measure up to close that. And the arguments of specific situations don't particularly hold up either, because they weren't unbalanced in any particular fashion, as people were claiming them to be.
- C -