However, Wald crosses the line when he accuses us of drinking light beer (and a bargain-brand of light beer, no less!). He also generally misrepresents our argument when he says "CHFF would like us all to believe that NFL teams can’t win a football game by running the ball." You can by running the ball well, just like you can win a game by playing good defense, or forcing a lot of turnovers, or any of a number of other ways. At the end of the day, though, passing the ball well is the greatest key to success in pro football, and great passing teams have always been better than great running teams. We see few arguments to the contrary. But you'll certainly get your fill of stats and data from Wald and his impressive piece of work.
The spreadsheet he repeatedly references is literally too big for us to upload into our system. But we're working to get it in right now and will add it ASAP.
By Mark Wald
He who makes unfounded accusations of drinking light beer
There’s a big problem with Cold, Hard Football Facts’ list of the "
Greatest Ground Attacks in NFL History," which shows no correlation to winning. CHFF uses this list as “proof” that the NFL running game is meaningless. All fine and dandy, except their use of this list is a misleading sham for a couple of reasons.
- It’s is based on season averages, not individual games stats. In order to determine which stats correlate to winning football games, individual game stats must be studied. The facts will show that the teams on this list won most of the games they played when they ran well in those games.
- In terms of winning correlation, Average Per Rush is a meaningless statistic. Rush Attempts and (to a lesser extent) Rush Yards have a strong winning correlation and are the stats that should be used to judge rushing success.
CHFF would like us all to believe that NFL teams can’t win a football game by running the ball. Try as they might to run the ball down the other team’s throat, control the ball, pile up yards, rack up attempts, all that will get them is a loss unless they pass the ball well.
In reality, on a game-by-game basis, teams that dominate the running game win the football game more often than not. In the regular season and in the playoffs. In fact, teams that rack up more rushing attempts than their opponents tend to win the game even when their opponent passes the ball more efficiently.
Want proof? Read on.
Game Stats Tell the Story – Not Season Averages or Year-End Results
Most of the teams on the
Greatest Ground Attacks list were not great teams. That’s not up for debate. What is up for debate is CHFF’s inference that these teams ran successfully but still lost.
The truth is these teams won when they rushed well and lost when they didn’t.
I studied all the teams on
this list.
1 (see Spreadsheet, tabs 1 & 2) As a group, the teams:
- Averaged 5.4 yards per carry in their wins, 4.8 yards per carry in their losses.
- Averaged 35.75 carries in wins, 26.5 carries in losses.
- Averaged 192.5 yards per game in wins, 126.5 yards per games in losses.
As CHFF has pointed out, with a combined record of 262-194, these teams were a little better than mediocre overall. That said, rushing dominance vs. their opponent was clearly present in the wins, not present in the losses.
|
|
Wins |
Losses |
|
Overall Win/Loss |
262 |
194 |
|
Rush Yards Advantage vs. Opponent |
223 |
79 |
|
Rush Attempts Advantage vs. Opponent |
201 |
49 |
|
YPPA* Advantage vs. Opponent |
198 |
41 |
|
Avg Yards Per Rush Advantage vs. Opponent |
196 |
138 |
* Yards Per Pass Attempt
CHFF makes a big deal about the lack of overall postseason success of these teams. In 17 playoff games, they won only 7. Again, not up for debate. But these teams didn’t dominate the rush stats and lose anyway, as CHFF infers. Rather, the Greatest Ground Attack teams generally won their playoff games when they outrushed their opponent in that game, and lost those playoff games when they didn’t.
I analyzed each of the 17 playoff games played by the Greatest Ground Attacks teams: (Spreadsheet, tab 2, starting row 40):
- In the 7 playoff wins, the winning teams equaled or exceeded their regular season average rush yards per game in only 3 of them, but 5 out of the 7 winning teams outrushed their playoff opponent in that game.
- In the 10 playoff losses, the losing teams rushed for fewer yards than their season average in 9 of those losses, and outrushed their opponent in only 2 of 10 games.
- In the 7 playoff wins, the average number of rushing attempts per game was 35.3 rushes. In the 10 losses the average number of rushing attempts was 23.9.
Clearly, these teams won when they ran better than their opponent, and lost when they didn’t.
Rushing Statistics That Matter
The preceding was just a fun way to demonstrate how misleading something can be when positioned a certain way. I won’t assert the Greatest Ground Attacks teams were great teams, because they were not great teams. They weren’t even great running teams, unless you’re impressed by yards per carry.
As CHFF pointed out many times, the passing stat with the greatest winning correlation is passing efficiency, measured as Yards Per Pas Attempt (YPPA). Apparently, CHFF assumes that since pass efficiency is the best indicator of passing success (defined by WINS), then rush efficiency must be the best stat to measure running success. Since that’s not the case, CHFF concluded the running game does not contribute to winning NFL football games.
CHFF once said, “…we put a lot of stock in efficiency over volume. Anyone can do something often. Not everybody can do something well.”
Oh, really? Who gives a shit. I’m not interested in CHFF’s definition of what is valuable. I’m interested in correlation to winning. Yards Per Rush Attempt has no correlation to winning, so I’m not interested. Other rushing stats do have a correlation to winning. Those I’m interested in.
I studied 11,249 NFL games played from 1946-20072 (Spreadsheet, tab 3).
NFL/AFL Games 1946-2007 (Games Analyzed 11,249)
|
Team with advantage in |
Win |
Loss |
Win Pct. |
|
Rushing attempts |
9,001 |
2,248 |
80% |
|
YPPA |
8,329 |
2,920 |
74% |
|
Rushing yards |
8,306 |
2,943 |
74% |
|
Yards per rush |
6,223 |
5,026 |
55% |
An 80 percent win rate speaks for itself. Yet, I know the argument CHFF will trot out faster than Kerry Byrne cracks a Keystone Light at a Bob Seger concert: rush attempts are piled on after the fact, after a team achieves the lead through other methods.
(Ed. Note: Wald’s really gone too far here! Byrne does NOT drink light beer of any kind. Clearly, Wald should stick to criticizing our football analysis and not our prodigious beer-tasting talent.)
Take a look at the following stats from NFL games 1946-2007 (Spreadsheet, tab 6):
|
In Individual Games Played, Team with…. |
Win |
Loss |
% |
Total Occurrences |
% |
|
Most Rush Attempts, Rush Yards, Highest Yards Per Rush, & Highest YPPA |
3,790 |
348 |
92% |
4,138 |
37% |
|
Most Rush Attempts &
Highest YPPA |
6,758 |
677 |
91% |
7,435 |
66% |
|
Most Rush Yards &
Highest YPPA |
6,117 |
731 |
89% |
6,848 |
61% |
|
Most Rush Attempts &
Most Rush Yards |
7,735 |
1,677 |
82% |
9,412 |
84% |
|
Most Rush Attempts &
Higher Yards Per Rush |
5,277 |
1,302 |
80% |
6,579 |
58% |
|
Higher Yards Per Rush &
Highest YPPA |
4,407 |
1,104 |
80% |
5,511 |
49% |
|
Most Rush Yards &
Highest Yards Per Rush |
5,848 |
2,568 |
69% |
8,416 |
75% |
|
Lower Yards Per Rush &
Higher YPPA |
3,922 |
1,816 |
68% |
5,738 |
51% |
|
Most Rush Attempts, Rush Yards
& Highest Yards Per Rush but Lower YPPA |
1,487 |
954 |
61% |
2,441 |
22% |
|
Most Rush Attempts &
Lower YPPA |
2,243 |
1,571 |
59% |
3,814 |
34% |
|
Less Rush Yards &
Higher YPPA |
2,212 |
2,189 |
50% |
4,401 |
39% |
|
Most Rush Yards &
Lower YPPA |
2,189 |
2,212 |
50% |
4,401 |
39% |
|
Less Rush Attempts &
Higher YPPA |
1,571 |
2,243 |
41% |
3,814 |
34% |
|
Less Rush Attempts, Rush Yards, Lower Yards Per Rush but Higher YPPA |
954 |
1,487 |
39% |
2,441 |
22% |
|
Higher Yards Per Rush &
Lower YPPA |
1,816 |
3,922 |
32% |
5,738 |
51% |
In individual games played, teams with the advantage in Rush Attempts, Rush Yards, Yards Per Rush, & YPPA won 92 percent of those games. Not surprising, since the team is dominating all parts of a game that matter.
Teams with the advantage in Rush Attempts & YPPA and Rush Yards & YPPA won 92 percent and 89 percent of those games, respectively.
Teams with more Rush Attempts and more Rush Yards than their opponent won 82% of those games.
And so on.
Getting to the point: In individual games played, teams that dominated their opponent in Rush Attempts, Rush Yards, YPPA or some combination of the three3 won at a rate greater than 80 percent.4 Find these three stats together and you find wins.
Here are the stats I find most interesting:
|
Team with…. |
Win |
Loss |
% |
Total Occurrences |
% |
|
Most Rush Attempts, Most Rush Yards
& Higher Rushing Average, Lower YPPA |
1,487 |
954 |
61% |
2,441 |
22% |
|
Most Rush Attempts, Lower YPPA |
2,243 |
1,571 |
59% |
3,814 |
34% |
|
Less Rush Attempts, Higher YPPA |
1,571 |
2,243 |
41% |
3,814 |
34% |
|
Less Rush Attempts, Rush Yards, Lower Rushing Average, Higher YPPA |
954 |
1,487 |
39% |
2,441 |
22% |
If Rush Attempts and Rush Yards were really a byproduct of passing efficiency you would expect teams with an advantage over their opponent in these two categories to lose anyway, unless they also had a YPPA advantage over their opponent, right?
Yet, teams with an advantage in Rush Attempts, Rush Yards, & Average Per Rush Attempt but a disadvantage in YPPA vs. their opponent won at a rate of 61 percent. And teams with an advantage in Rush Attempts but a disadvantage in YPPA vs. their opponent won 59 percent of the time.
On the other hand, teams with an advantage in YPPA but less Rush Attempts than their opponent won only 41 percent of the time, and teams that passed more efficiently but held no advantage in any rush statistic won only 39 percent of the time.
In summary:
- Teams that pass more efficiently and have an advantage in rush attempts or yards vs. their opponent win the most often.
- If a team can only manage to pass well or rush well, but not both, running a lot trumps passing well.
- Teams with an advantage in rush attempts or a combined rush attempts/yards/average advantage over their opponent manage to win more than they lose even when their opponent has a superior YPPA in that game.
- Teams with a superior YPPA over their opponent lose more than they win if they do not have some a similar rush advantage over their opponent.
Are these results weighted down by the volume of rush-oriented older games in the study sample? A more recent focus sees even a slightly higher winning advantage to the rushers:
In individual games played from 2005-2007 (Spreadsheet, tab 4):
- Teams with more Rush Attempt than their opponents won 81% of the time.
- Teams with an advantage in Rush Attempts, Rush Yards, and Average Per Rush Attempt but a disadvantage in YPPA won 64% of the time.
- Teams with more Rush Attempts but lower YPPA won 62% of the time.
- Teams with less Rush Attempts and higher YPPA won only 38% of the time.
- Teams with a disadvantage in Rush Attempts, Rush Yards, and Average Per Rush Attempt and an advantage in YPPA won only 36% of the time.
Are the results a regular season phenomenon? Focusing on playoff games sees an even more favorable advantage to teams that dominated the rushing stats. In playoff games from 1946-2007 (Spreadsheet 5):
- Teams with more Rush Attempts won 84% of the time.
- Teams with an advantage in Rush Attempts, Rush Yards, Average Per Rush Attempt but a disadvantage in YPPA won 64% of the time.
- Teams with more Rush Attempts and lower YPPA won 63% of the time.
- Teams with less Rush Attempts and higher YPPA won only 37% of the time.
- Teams with a disadvantage in Rush Attempts, Rush Yards, and Average Per Rush Attempt and an advantage in YPPA won only 36% of the time.
The statistics show – regular season, playoffs, going way back, going back not so far – teams that passed well but did not own some type of rushing advantage over their opponent had a losing record in those games. On the other hand, teams with more rushing attempts than their opponent but did not pass as well as their opponent still won more than 60% of those games.
The facts prove that rushing the football is a key component to winning in the NFL.
Provided a team does it.
What that means is a “great running team” (based on season-long performance) may very well get stuffed in the playoffs, like the 1994 Lions did when Green Bay held them to 4 yards on 15 attempts.
According to CHFF, that proves running the football isn’t a winning formula.
Er….no. It means the Detroit Lions running game got stuffed in the 1994 playoffs when they played Green Bay. The Lions also won every game that year when they owned a rushing advantage over their opponent, and lost every game they didn’t. (Spreadsheet tab 1, lines 323-341)
Rushing the football produces wins, provided a team can do it.
I’ll put it out there in brass tacks: on a game-by-game basis, teams that dominate the rushing stats (defined by attempts) will win more games than teams that dominate the passing efficiency stats. Then again, based on the research we just covered, this isn’t exactly a bold statement anymore, is it? I’m simply following the Cold, Hard Football Facts.
***
Footnotes:
1 - Regular season and playoff games. 1934 Bears excluded. My database only goes back to 1946.
2 - Includes games where complete Rush/Pass stats were available and games in which at least 1 pass was thrown. Tie games were excluded.
3 – Similar to Shit Beer, the Qwest for Mainstream Success, and Kerry Byrne, where you an advantage in one of these stats, you’re likely to find an advantage in the other, although we’re not sure which begets which.
4 - Why am I ignoring the fact that teams with a lower rushing average and a higher YPPA won 68% of the time? Because piling up rushing attempts in a game tends to reduce rushing average. And since teams with an advantage in Rush Attempts and YPPA win 91% of the time, the first statistic is really kind of buried in the second.
5 - Rush attempts per game and average rush yards per game has declined over the years, much like the passing game has evolved over the years. As you noted in your passing rankings, ranking relative to the league in a given year is a much fairer comparison. Average per carry has not declined over the years, though. However, in order to remain consistent, I also adjusted it for league average that year.
6 – Strictly being the devil’s advocate here. I don’t actually believe it to be true. I previously illustrated a correlation to winning based on teams’ first-half rushing stats in a previous article submitted to CHFF.
7 - Kerry, Bob Seger once covered a Creedence song. Just making sure you’re comfortable, big fella.
8 - Gee, I didn’t figure that out two minutes into the first game I ever attended when I couldn’t see shit.
9 - aka “The Agree-er”. Pat Summerall was also known by this moniker.
