Characteristics of Winning Teams

somehow, brian burke and i ended up independently writing about establishing the run on the same day. he looked at whether or not running the ball early/more really does tend to wear down a defense using the premise that if a defense really was wearing down, you'd see yards per carry increase as the number of runs increased -- that the YPC would be higher for the 30th carry than the 1st carry. turns out that conventional football wisdom may be wrong about this as well.

in fact, if you look at his graph, it actually looks like it has a slight downward slope -- that the early runs tend to be more effective than the late runs. though that could be impacted by other factors, e.g. teams that have a 40th carry are probably protecting a big lead forcing the other team to stack the line trying to get the ball back.

so, i wanted to take a look at what team stats correlated strongly with winning this season -- it's been done before, but i may be the first to do it with this year's numbers. here is what i came up with (correlating the following stats for each team with that team's number of wins this season):

Stat	Corr
PF	0.692
PA	-0.784
Net Pts	0.909
TO	0.430

so this basically makes sense, points scored correlates pretty well with the number of wins, but not as strongly as points against (defense wins championships, you know). though neither of them as strongly point differential, validating what we already know -- that you need both offense and defense to win. interestingly, turnover differential isn't that strong of a predictor.

here are some of the individual offensive and defensive stats (from nfl.com)

Category	Stat	Corr		Category	Stat	Corr
TotOff	Yds/G	0.561		TotDef	Yds/G	-0.726
TotOff	Yds/P	0.477		TotDef	Yds/P	-0.682
TotOff	3rd Pct	0.552		TotDef	3rd Pct	-0.480
TotOff	Pen	0.004		TotDef	Pen	0.192
TotOff	Pen Yds	0.029		TotDef	Pen Yds	0.178
TotOff	RunPct	0.373		TotDef	RunPct	-0.715
OffPass	CmpPct	0.488		DefPass	CmpPct	-0.405
OffPass	Att/G	-0.087		DefPass	Att/G	0.426
OffPass	YPA	0.483		DefPass	YPA	-0.689
OffPass	Yds/G	0.297		DefPass	Yds/G	-0.424
OffPass	1st%	0.652		DefPass	1st%	-0.580
OffPass	20+	0.169		DefPass	20+	-0.378
OffPass	Sck	-0.473		DefPass	Sck	0.562
OffPass	QBRate	0.561		DefPass	QBRate	-0.594
OffRush	Att/G	0.547		DefRush	Att/G	-0.775
OffRush	Avg	0.149		DefRush	Avg	-0.532
OffRush	Yds/G	0.484		DefRush	Yds/G	-0.722
OffRush	1st%	0.201		DefRush	1st%	-0.509
OffRush	20+	0.301		DefRush	20+	-0.591

some interesting stuff here. for the 2008 season, there were only five offensive team offensive stats that correlated fairly strongly with wins, they were (in order):

- percent of passes resulting in a first down
- total yards per game
- team QB rating
- third down conversion rate
- number of rushing attempts per game

of course, this doesn't tell us which of these factors are causative and which merely correlate, but here's how i interpret what this is telling us -- winning teams move the ball up and down the field via efficient passing games to score points and then protect them by running the ball.

there were lots of decent to good defensive predictors of success, the top 10 were (in order):

- rushing attempts per game against
- total yards against per game
- rushing yards against per game
- run/pass play mix against (more runs against = fewer wins)
- yards per pass against
- yards per play against
- QB rating against
- big rushing plays against (20+yards)
- percent of passes resulting in first down
- yards per rush against

a lot of these defensive stats overlap, but it's clear that stopping the run correlates strongly with winning. the question is, does stopping the run cause winning or does winning cause other teams to not run? it's not clear cut, but yards per rush against (i.e. defensive success against each running play) is a much weaker correlation than rushing attempts per game and total rushing yardage against which may indicate that that forcing teams to pass is slightly more important than stopping the run.

a few surprising things that conventional wisdom says are important, but don't in fact seem to correlate strongly with wins are:

- number of penalties (for or against)
- penalty yards (for or against)
- offensive rushing yards per carry

Myth of Establishing the Run

i'm on record as being a fan of the power running game and not a big fan of the worst coast offense, but this ongoing notion of needing to establish the run to win continues to baffle me. i keep hearing every tv and radio talking head pointing to yesterday's win as proof that you have to run to win. i just don't understand why this perception sticks in people's minds or how you can point to yesterday as proof that running leads to winning.

the game was won in the early part of yesterday's game -- game over at 17-3. let's review the eagle drives leading to that point.

drive 1
1 run for 2 yards
4 passes for 27 yards
drive ends on westbrook fumble

drive 2
4 rushes for 29 yards
2 passes for 3 scramble yards
drive ends in FG

drive 3
2 rushes for 8 yards
2 passes for 59 yards
2 QB sneaks
drive ends in TD

drive 4
2 rushes for 8 yards
1 pass resulting in sack
drive ends in punt

drive 5
5 runs for 6 yards
6 passes for 65 yards
drive ends in TD

totals for first five drives
14 called runs leading to 53 yards -- 3.8 yards per play
15 called passes leading to 145 yards -- 9.7 yards per play

i know people are looking at that at the number of called plays and thinking "see that's balance", but the runs were not meaningful in building that 17-3 lead. that lead was built entirely on 2 big plays -- mcnabb scramble and pass to buckhalter and mcnabb floating a ball over tight coverage to desean jackson.

just for sh*ts and giggles, let's compare the playcalling for this game to the first five real drives of the washington game.

drive 1
2 rushes for 2 yards
4 passes for 13 yards
drive ends in punt

drive 2
3 rushes for 16 yards
3 passes for -3 yards
drive ends in punt

drive 3
1 rush for 4 yards
3 passes for 13 yards
drive ends in punt

drive 4
1 rush for 2 yards
2 passes for 7 yards
drive ends in punt

drive 5
not counting since end of first half
2 rushes for 11 yards
drive ends at halftime

drive 6
2 rushes for 10 yards (though the birds also ran an end around called back for holding)
4 passes for 6 net yards
drive ends in fumble

totals for first five real drives
9 rushes for 34 yards (10 called rushes) -- 3.8 yards per play
16 called passes for 36 yards -- 2.25 yards per play

was playcalling mix or establishing the run really a meaningful difference in these two games? doesn't seem like it to me.

yes, the eagles called a few more runs in the dallas game than in the washington game, but the real difference was execution in the passing game. correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

forget what the talking heads are telling you. if the eagles are to win in the playoffs, they must execute consistently in the passing game.

UPDATE: i didn't come up with this notion and my rudimentary analysis above is not intended to prove that passing is more important than running, my intent is only to counter the popular current theme that the eagles won "because the playcalling was more balanced". however, here are some links that cover the topic in more detail:

- usatoday - myth #1
- cnnsi.com - myth #1
- nytimes
- benjamin alamar - passing premium puzzle
- aaron schatz - myth of the run

finally, there is brian burke (i've linked to these before and they're definitely a lot to digest but worth a read). brian covers the topic across three posts finally concluding (correctly i believe) that to think about it as run vs. pass oversimplifies the analysis. we need to determine what each team happens to be good at and determine the proper mix accordingly (similar to my contention that it isn't what kind of play a team calls, only that it is successful).

Game 17 Thoughts

happy holidays eagles fans!

did anyone out there have hope that the ending to the season would shake out as well as it did? i certainly didn't.

despite the devastating loss to washington last week, despite the maddening inconsistency all season, despite the hideous tie to the bengals, this eagles team is heading in the playoffs playing as well as any team in football... really. to do it in dominating, humiliating fashion while simultaneously knocking the cowboys out of the playoffs, well that's just icing on the cake --

how 'bout them cowboys!

as much complaining as we've done and conclusions as we've (probably prematurely) drawn, the bottom line is that the birds (our birds) are entering the playoffs playing as well as any team in football -- peaking at the right time -- and set to compete against what is overall a pretty weak corps of playoff competitors.

woo hoo!

some thoughts:

- i love the addition of the QB sneak to the offensive repertoire (finally). just the threat of it makes a big difference in how the defense has to game plan in short yardage.

- many thanks go to the oakland raiders for knocking off the jon gruden coached buccaneers. for all of you eagles fans out there hoping to dump big red so we can grab gruden, please try to remember that everything you find frustrating about andy reid's philosophy and offense you'll get double with grudog

- i don't think this game impacts whether mcnabb is back or not -- if the eagles don't win the superbowl, i believe they'll trade mcnabb while his stock is still high -- but i do think it does impact the fate of reid. if they lost today, i think it's possible that banner/lurie would have taken personnel decision-making away from reid (which is what i'm hoping for and will explain when i finally get around to posting part three of where do we go from here). reid's coming back in full force folks, get used to the idea and learn to live with it.

- how good can this defense be? it's small, but as we saw today, if they play with the lead they can be simply devastating.

- i know andy's always talking about being able to "throw fastballs", but this team sure does have a lot of pass rushers. cole, howard, abiamiri, clemons and can all get to the qb pretty quickly. the single biggest reason the giants won the superbowl last season is because of their ability to generate passrush with their line. i'm definitely not suggesting that his crew is even worth comparing to strahan, umenyiora, et al, but they definitely seem to be peaking at the right time.

- samuel seems to be getting some heat, but i don't get it. i think he's playing as well (or better) than any corner i've seen on the birds since i've been watching. his hands may not be as good, but from what i saw this season, he's in better position against receivers when the ball arrives more consistently than eric allen or troy vincent were. the guy is damn good, and the difference between samuel and sheppard is much bigger than i expected coming into the season.

- how good can quinton mikell be? coming into this season, i was very worried about the future of the safety position (post-dawkins), but with mikell playing this well and as much promise as demps has shown, seems like the safety position is stocked pretty well looking forward.

- did dawkins play himself into another contract with his pro-bowl season? i think it's possible, but i doubt it unless he's willing to take a "below market" contract. of all the players that have played for andy reid, i believe dawkins is far and away the best one. however, he's not the player he once was, and while he can still create some chaos when he's in attack mode, the eagles rarely leave him in single coverage anymore. he's not the do-everything superman he once was, and i highly doubt the eagles will give him another big contract. i think the emergence of mikell and the development of demps plays a big factor here as well.

- chris gocong is starting to get it. i've been surprised at how patient jim johnson has been with him (usually by now he'd be calling the guy out in the press ala gaither, darwin walker, trent cole early in his career), but jj must continue to see potential in him and i think we're starting to see why they continue to give him some rope. there have been some plays that gocong has made over the last few games that really made him stand out to me. two examples: 1) i don't recall the game situation, but in the giants game, gocong took on brandon jacobs solo, stopped him dead, picked him up off the ground and spun around threw him about two yards backwards. it sticks in my mind because i rarely see jacobs stopped in his tracks by one guy let alone manhandled the way he was. 2) in the cleveland game, cleveland ran some sort of misdirection off the wildcat formation with their punt returner cribbs taking the snap. the entire defense flowed left, while cribbs ended up going to the defense's right with a wide open field. gocong was lined up on the other side of the field and somehow ran all the way across against the flow of traffic and caught cribbs from behind keeping it to something like a 12 yard gain.

i'm excited as heck for the playoffs and i definitely don't want to put the cart before the horse, but (knocking on wood) the eagles match up pretty well against the other teams in the playoffs.

2005 steelers, 2007 giants, why not us?

Eagles Fans Truly "Legendary"

eagles fans pelting of santa claus with snowballs in 1968 is such an oft referenced story that it has literally reached urban legend status. snopes.com (urban legend de-bunking site) now has an article providing all of the facts you'd ever want to know about that defining moment for eagles nation.

Philadelphia's nickname may be "The City of Brotherly Love," but sports fans in that metropolis are notorious for a lack of fraternal affection: According to reputation, Philadelphia fans love a winner (who doesn't?) but will mercilessly turn on any players or team that don't live up to expectations, no matter how brilliant their past performances. No single image sums up that reputation more succinctly than the claim (as expressed in the examples cited above) that fans in Philadelphia once booed and pelted with snowballs that most inoffensive, beloved, and benevolent of figures, Santa Claus himself. The claim is true, although the potentially mitigating circumstances under which the incident occurred typically go unmentioned.

at least snopes bothered to give you the whole story instead of a sensationalized soundbite

Game 14 Thoughts

i walked into last night's game thinking that i wouldn't be satisfied unless the birds won by 20 points... and the birds delivered a 20 point win. and yet i can't help but feel a complete lack of satisfaction about last night's win. maybe my expectations are too high. maybe i'm seeking perfection where it's unreasonable to seek. i can't tell exactly, but the only thing i can really say is that i find this team maddening. simply maddening.

i should probably be smacked for being underwhelmed about a 30-10 victory. really. the eagles covered the 14 point line, and even before you consider style points, 20 point victories are pretty rare in the nfl.

so i should have no basis for being disappointed about a 20 point victory -- the exact margin of victory i was seeking prior to the game -- and yet i am.

why am i disappointed? i can't identify one single factor that's driving this, but here are a few thinking points:

- due to some combination of injuries, lack of talent, poor coaching the browns were clearly not in a league with the birds last night. while the game was never in doubt at any point, the birds never really put them away. there was no kill shot. they built a big lead, but it was workmanlike and took more effort than it should have. the birds could, and more importantly, should have put the brown away in the first half. but didn't.

- donovan mcnabb looked like the best QB in the league last night between the 20s. he was throwing darts into very tight spots last night. as soon as the team crossed the 20, not so much? why does this happen? is it donovan? is it the playcalling? is it the o-line?

brian burke, who runs the advanced nfl stats blog, thinks that differences in QB red zone performance vs. non-redzone performance are random... and if you look, mcnabb underperformed in the red zone in 2007, but his 2008 red zone stats are pretty consistent with other parts of the field.

- the eagles had two turnovers at the goal line. two turnovers at the goal line against the woebegone browns. this is not an insignificant thing. why did the eagles call a fake wildcat pass? it was a completely unnecessary play. sometimes it's like andy can't help himself. most people complain that he is not creative enough. in fact he is too creative! just play football. why take risks when the risks are unnecessary?

- crossing the goal line. what is it with players on this team dumping the ball before crossing the goal line? there needs to be accountability. they wouldn't get away with this crap if belicheat was the coach.

the bottom line is the bottom line, and yes, this was a win, a dominant win even. however, it didn't leave me with a feeling that all is well. possibly the biggest reason why that disappoints me is that there is no great team in the nfl this year. if they could just get their heads on straight, why couldn't this eagles team be the one that gets hot at the right time -- ala 2005 steelers and 2007 giants?

other thoughts:

- what did the replays look like on the westbrook dive at the end of the first half? did the ball cross the plane? why was there no review? it looked like the eagles were expecting the ref to stop the clock for a review that never came.

- the o-line pass protected incredibly well last night. best i've seen all season. i'm sure a lot had to do with the opposition, but if they can protect like that moving forward, this team can go very far.

School Board Shenanigans?

this isn't about sports, but it's what has been occupying my time and energy recently

let's pretend that there was a school district somewhere that was thinking about taking all of the children who live within a one-mile radius around a school and bussing those children to another school several miles away so that other children could be bussed in to attend in their place. can anyone envision a scenario where this makes logical sense (unless you're one of those people working to displace)? i sure can't.

yet that is exactly what is happening in Lower Merion, where the school board is not only thinking about doing this, they actually proposed a redistricting plan that would essentially take a community of walkers and turn them into bus riders.

“Why would they do this?” you might ask. “What’s the logic behind a move like that?”

“Is it for fairness?” – not really the children involved already face the longest commute times for both elementary and middle school to schools other than the ones to which they are closest

“Is it for environmental reasons?” – i’m not sure, but i suspect converting 200 walkers into bus riders isn’t exactly what I’d call “green”

“Is there a cost savings?” – doubtful as the district will now have to add bus capacity to service those 200 additional riders

“Why would they do it then?”

there are a number of factors involved (political, demographic, wealth), but unfortunately logic and fairness seem to be lacking. the bottom line is that the district decided that adding 10 minutes to the commute of one community (the wealthier one where the children already walk to elementary school and attend their closest middle school) was more burdensome than turning over another community (the less well-to-do one that chooses and values its walking lifestyle and whose children already face the longest commutes for both elementary and middle schools) and forcing them onto a bus.

shame on you, Lower Merion school board. shame on you.