Sincerely Stupid Statistic: A lie using cause and effect.

I have had a problem with analysis in many cases but there is one stat analysts use that truly just irks me beyond normal. You have all heard it, you have possibly accepted the truth to it or taken it into effect when doing your own analysis. Simply stated, with a “stat” to back it up, it seems logical, yet its not all that true. Can you guess what it is?

OK, time is up. It’s the “when they run the ball 25 or more times a game they are 5-0” or the “if this team stays balanced, sticks with the run, they will win”. Balance is skewed somewhat in my opinion. To me that statement is a flat out lie. It uses the basic cause and effect rule that makes it seem logical, til you flip it on its back. The cause: Run the ball. The effect: win the game.

Now while it is true that a team won more games that lost when running the ball 25 times or more, it doesn’t take into “effect” the whole picture of the game. I have always thought but never proven that if you want a good picture of what a teams gameplan was just look at the first half play calling. Look at the runs and pass attempts. Look at the order of the play calls. Look and see if the coach stuck with what produced or not. The second half is all reaction to what the other team ia doing, based on time left and the score. A team in the first half may have ran half as much as they threw or vice versa. Well take the first instance.

The team ran 30 plays, threw 19 of them and ran 11 in whatever order. The score at the Half is 17-7 holding the lead. Now what are you gonna do? Chances are that team isn’t gonna come out in the second half throw the ball up and down the field. They are gonna come out and control the clock while trying to continue to take what the defense is giving them, unless you’re Andy Reid of course. This will obviously drive the rush attempts up and over 25. That, my friends, is exactly why I hate that stat. Joe Buck, Chris Collinsworth, Al Michaels and company will have you believing that its because they were “balanced” and ran the ball when it really wasn’t the case. Yes having balance is good. Yes running the ball well increases your chances of a win. But it isn’t the CAUSE of the win, look at Jamal Charles and the 2012 Chiefs.

The cause: Winning. The effect: Running the ball.

That’s the truth of it.