Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web

Need Help with KUBIAK or Premium?

blog advertising is good for you


02 Sep 2009

Run To Win, Part 347

I really like Matt Maiocco's work at the Press Democrat blog. So it pained me to read this article today about Jimmy Raye's offensive plans for the Niners. Offensive paragraph quoted:

If something like that really happened, 49ers fans would love it - that is, if 49ers fans love the excitement of winning. Because -- as mind-numbing boring as it might sound -- in the NFL, running the football with great frequency is an indicator of success.

Do teams run to win? Or do they win then run? It does not matter.

Here's the thing: It really, really does matter.

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 02 Sep 2009

48 comments, Last at 04 Sep 2009, 11:45am by jimbohead

Comments

1
by Thanos (not verified) :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 4:49pm

sigh...
But in the author's defense, if I was from an area where neither team had been good in nearly a decade I would place winning above rational thought too.

46
by Scott C :: Thu, 09/03/2009 - 3:44pm

That is exactly what Al Davis does.

2
by Briguy :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 5:03pm

I love reading the comment boards on those sites. A particularly good one there by "Nastysteve":

If we can be SUCCESSFUL running the ball 60% of the time and our defense can shut down offenses by getting to the QB and getting turnovers. there is no reason why we can't cant be a playoff team.

Is that how you win? It's so easy! Why didn't all the other teams think of that? You should be coaching somewhere.

Oh, wait... "no reason you can't cant be a playoff team?" Let's see... extra negatives cancel each other out... carry the 4... just leaves "we can't be a playoff team." Damn. Sorry, 9ers fans.

17
by BucNasty :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 7:43pm

Ahh, that's not so bad, and I'm not just saying this because we're both Nasty. He's got the gist of it right. You can win by running if you're moving the ball rather than just trying to hit some arbitrary number. He's at least rejecting the faulty premise of the article.

3
by Phyrre56 :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 5:16pm

Everyone knows that correlation and causation are just two fancy words for the same thing, so figuring out which is which is a waste of time.

30
by The Ninjalectual :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 10:00pm

HAH!

4
by t.d. :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 5:55pm

Frank Gore might be an elite back. Shaun Hill isn't an elite quarterback.

5
by G_Man :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 5:56pm

It always amazes me how grown, educated adults still don't understand that correlation does not imply causation. I learned that in high school math. Why do people always assume this? My only explanation is that it's a product of laziness. Admittedly, it's a lot harder to dig into data to find real causes when there's a strong correlation that appears to make intuitive sense on the surface.

8
by The Guy You Don't Want to Hear (not verified) :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 6:24pm

I never heard correlation even mentioned in high school. Perhaps that's part of the problem? I certainly know it now, but I have a bachelor's degree in psychology and took statistics in college. Other people in my high school who didn't go on to college (most of them) still wouldn't know what a correlation is.

14
by Jack (not verified) :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 7:31pm

Hey, I've noticed that really, really rich people don't work very much. So I've decided to quit my job and become rich!

18
by Bowl Game Anomaly :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 7:43pm

Hotter areas have more crime and colder areas have less crime. So to combat global warming, my plan is to crack down on crime!

21
by Bright Blue Shorts :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 7:58pm

Apparently more people drown at the beach when there are high numbers of ice creams sold.

26
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 8:55pm

In college, I noticed that women were better looking at closing time, so to save money I started waiting until ten minutes prior to last call to arrive at the tavern. It was my rotten luck, of course, that the gorgeous babes then all decided at once to stop drinking! Hmmmpfff!

38
by DeltaWhiskey :: Thu, 09/03/2009 - 5:36am

Some people believe that having a running back carry the ball more than 370 times in a season causes bad things the next season.

45
by steelberger (not verified) :: Thu, 09/03/2009 - 2:58pm

I see, so you are saying that correlation only equals causation when this site says so?

Interesting.

35
by Admore (not verified) :: Thu, 09/03/2009 - 12:59am

What, you mean matches and lighters don't cause lung cancer?

39
by dbostedo :: Thu, 09/03/2009 - 9:30am

This is the greatest (maybe only?) comic strip ever written on correlation/causation...

http://www.xkcd.com/552/

6
by Snowglare :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 6:03pm

I might've given him the benefit of the doubt before that last line. It's like he's been here before, or at least had the "win to run" argument parroted at him, and he refuses to believe. That's such a bizarre thing to say unless you're taking a preemptive dig at detractors.

7
by bravehoptoad :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 6:16pm

I don't think you guys are understanding what he's saying. He doesn't CARE about causality, and he's not trying to prove either side of the argument.

All he cares about in this case is the correlation.

He's saying: if the 49ers end up running 60% of the time this coming season, they'll be big winners. That's hard to argue with. Where's he wrong? Running the ball with great frequency is, in fact, a great indicator of success. He doesn't care why and he's not trying to prove why.

10
by DavidL :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 6:36pm

In that case he might as well say that if the 49ers win all their games, they'll be big winners. Tautologies are just as annoying as fallacies.

31
by Omroth-UK (not verified) :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 10:16pm

I think fallacies are more annoying than tautologies. Tautologies tend to be easier to prove.

Yes, I'm being purposefully anal :)

41
by bravehoptoad :: Thu, 09/03/2009 - 11:31am

Maybe annoying, but tautologies are pretty fundamental to logic.

What's annoying is a bunch of people prentending to know the difference between causation and corrleation and completely unable to recognize the latter when someone's writing an article about it.

9
by The Guy You Don't Want to Hear (not verified) :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 6:31pm

I love how he turns the Cardinals winning while running 44% of the time into support . . . amazing.

11
by Dennis :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 7:07pm

Because he was comparing it to their 34% run percentage in the regular season to show how they ran the ball more when they won more. You can certainly slam the guy for his argument, but this was reasonable data in support of his argument.

12
by Brendan Scolari :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 7:10pm

I think your missing the point here Bill. Maiocco is saying that if the Niners are able to run the ball that much that means they are ahead, so they will be winning.

That's why Maiocco said in a different article, "If the Niners run the ball 60% of the time I guarantee they win the NFC West". Because the only way they end up doing that is if they have leads late in the game and trying to run out the clock. He never says that running the ball is what caused the winning, only that if they end up running that much they will have been a good team.

13
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 7:28pm

"That's why Maiocco said in a different article, "If the Niners run the ball 60% of the time I guarantee they win the NFC West"."

"If A, then B" with B being in the simple future tense implies that A is causal to B. If Maiocco had said "If the Niners run the ball 60% of the time, I guarantee they will have won the NFC West," that does not imply the causal link with nearly the same force.

By far the most appropriate statement would be "if the Niners run the ball 60% of the time, it will be because they have won the NFC West."

If he really does understand that run percentage is not causative to winning, then his problem isn't poor logic, it's poor writing.

27
by Mr Shush :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 8:55pm

'"If A, then B" with B being in the simple future tense implies that A is causal to B.'

I happen to (more or less) agree with you on this point, but I assure you that the majority of logicians do not. "If A, then B", with B being in the simple future tense, would ordinarily be analysed as a straightforward material conditional. On this analysis, "If A, then B" would be true if A turned out to be false and/or B turned out to be true, regardless of any causal connection. "If the Niners run the ball 60% of the time, they will win the NFC West" would be true if Gore's head fell off, the Niners ran 20% of the time at 1.7 yards a clip, Shaun Hill played like Montana and Young roled into one and the defense morphed into the 2000 Ravens.

Of course, many would argue that causation is (only) a special type of correlation - of counterfactual correlation, specifically. Some would even suggest that any reasonably strong counterfactual correlation ought to be regarded as causation (though of course many are generally not). And some (myself included) would argue that future indicative conditionals in English ought properly to be analysed as counterfactual, not material. So your interpretation is tenable, but certainly not irrefutable. Regardless, I think it's pretty clear that this is not what Maiocco meant, and that the problem with the article is that it's vacuous, not that it's mistaken.

28
by BucNasty :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 9:17pm

So are the Niners going to the playoffs or not?

32
by MilkmanDanimal :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 10:42pm

Yes, the Niners could go to the playoffs. Assuming that somebody buys them tickets, of course.

34
by Brendan Scolari :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 11:09pm

They have a shot, the NFC West is really bad this year (as usual). Not a great one, but a decent chance.

29
by Will Allen (not verified) :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 9:17pm

This is a example that falls under the heading of "Clear writing is hard", and why we should (nevermind that we, espcially me, often don't) err on the side of generosity when reading others' opinions. I have to say, however, that perhaps less generosity is incumbent on us when reading people who get paid a lot of money to write, in the same way that it is less incumbent on us to be generous when a NFL qb throws 4 interceptions than we would when some Division II college qb does.

In any case, that's my rationalization for reviling Peter King.

36
by Admore (not verified) :: Thu, 09/03/2009 - 1:03am

Ah Peter King, got it.

I thought for a moment you were extolling the typically huge paydays in journalism. Especially after a banner year like 2008.

15
by BucNasty :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 7:32pm

It's certainly implied. Stating that the Niners will win the division if they run 60% of the time is either buying into "run to win" or a completely useless statement, like saying if they kneel on the ball more than twice in at least 10 of their games they should go at least 10-6.

19
by Brendan Scolari :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 7:48pm

Good point. That was his intention though, at least IMO.

23
by Tundrapaddy (not verified) :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 8:05pm

Damn, how could I have missed that hidden stat?

Boys, we're gonna kneel on every offensive play. Teams that kneel more win 98 percent of the time!

24
by BucNasty :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 8:27pm

Better have everyone on defense take a knee, too, just to be sure.

42
by bravehoptoad :: Thu, 09/03/2009 - 11:35am

Sure, he might just as well have said, "I guarantee that if the 49ers kneel 64 times this season, they'll be in the playoffs."

And then a bunch of people would have come on-line and complained about how he's confusing correlation and causation.

44
by BucNasty :: Thu, 09/03/2009 - 1:59pm

Actually we would have complained that he's making a useless statement, which you'd understand if you had read my first post.

16
by Bowl Game Anomaly :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 7:38pm

Yeah, but in that case, so what? What's the point of saying it?

20
by Brendan Scolari :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 7:52pm

Because Niner fans are interested in how often the team will run the ball, mostly because of what Singletary and Raye have said in press conferences in interviews.

He's just pointing out that if the Niners do end up running the ball that much it means they'll have been successful. You have to remember, the average person who reads his blog is not like the average person here at FO. They're not looking for causation or lots of statistical evidence, all they want is a simple number they can focus on. Is Maicco's article particularly interesting? No, but it works for his audience.

25
by jimbohead :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 8:29pm

yeah, see that quote was what I was thinking about too. I'm pretty sure he understands that "run to win" is flawed, but his main point here is about watchability. The complaint is, "running 60% is really really boring," and his counter is, "running 60% means you're winning. Are you as a niners fan going to complain about winning?"

33
by Brendan Scolari :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 10:56pm

That's my understanding.

40
by Bowl Game Anomaly :: Thu, 09/03/2009 - 11:01am

If that's correct, it's a valid point but the expression of it was muddled. If a bunch of intelligent readers like us have to struggle this hard to puzzle out the hidden meaning of his article, then it was poorly written.

43
by Brendan Scolari :: Thu, 09/03/2009 - 1:10pm

No argument there. I don't think we would be debating about it otherwise.

48
by jimbohead :: Fri, 09/04/2009 - 11:46am

[double post]

47
by jimbohead :: Fri, 09/04/2009 - 11:45am

Agreed, but you have to see it in the context of that blog with that readership. We tend to hang out on the FO boards, but if you spend some time on niners boards, you'll see that this is really part of an internal discussion. He's responding to his readership on a blog, rather than writing a formal article for a wide audience, including FO readers. See, forms matter!

22
by Led :: Wed, 09/02/2009 - 7:59pm

Correlation obviously doesn't imply causation. But if you can run the ball with a high success rate 60% of the time (a big if), it's going to be a helluva lot easier to pass effectively the other 40%, all other things being equal. On the other hand, if you don't have much of a passing game, it's pretty difficult to run successfully that often.

37
by I LOVE MAICCO (not verified) :: Thu, 09/03/2009 - 3:16am

It's tongue-in-cheek, guys. I read him all the time. He's making fun of Raye's statement.

Raye is saying that he will dictate a 60/40 split, but Maicco's (subtle) point is that it's the game situation that would dicate such an imbalance, not the coaches. Bottom-up, not top-down. And his point is that if Raye is actually successful in his 60/40 split, then it will be indicative of winning, not of forcing runs on 3rd and 8 to get up to 60% runs (and the niners will see a lot of 3rd and 8 this year).

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.