Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 58
  1. #11
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,869

    Re: The Optimal Run-Pass Ratio (Marrdro and I go at it again).

    Interesting read.
    I didn't see what the runass ration was in '06 and '07 for the Vikings, just that they had 52 more carries in '07 then '06.
    It also says the league is at 45:55 ratio which is far from optimum according to his analysis.


    I can follow his analysis and why he comes up with the ratio, but hard to know how much merit to put into it without any teams following it.

    Bottom line what he is saying (I think) is that the ratio is not predicated by your ability to run vs. pass, but rather both phases of the game (running and passing) will benefit if this ratio is maintained no matter the talent.
    It makes sense in a lot of aspects, but hard to translate to a live game.
    The scripting of a large number of plays makes a lot of sense if you buy into this philosophy.

  2. #12
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,916

    Re: The Optimal Run-Pass Ratio (Marrdro and I go at it again).

    "cajunvike" wrote:
    There is only ONE optimal run/pass ratio...the ratio that beats that day's opponent.
    Anything else is artificial.
    In-game adjustment of the ratio is what wins games...and if Chilly can master the in-game adjustment, we wont even care what the ratio ends up being.
    Bingo.......

    Give that man a law degree..... ;D

    Its still a fun topic that I like to discuss with V though.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  3. #13
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Optimal Run-Pass Ratio (Marrdro and I go at it again).

    "tastywaves" wrote:
    Interesting read.
    I didn't see what the runass ration was in '06 and '07 for the Vikings, just that they had 52 more carries in '07 then '06.
    It also says the league is at 45:55 ratio which is far from optimum according to his analysis.


    I can follow his analysis and why he comes up with the ratio, but hard to know how much merit to put into it without any teams following it.

    Bottom line what he is saying (I think) is that the ratio is not predicated by your ability to run vs. pass, but rather both phases of the game (running and passing) will benefit if this ratio is maintained no matter the talent.
    It makes sense in a lot of aspects, but hard to translate to a live game.
    The scripting of a large number of plays makes a lot of sense if you buy into this philosophy.
    2007:
    432 Pass attempts
    494 Runs
    ~ 53:47 runassratio

    2006:
    540 Pass attempts
    442 Runs
    ~ 45:55 runass ratio
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  4. #14
    mountainviking's Avatar
    mountainviking is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,840

    Re: The Optimal Run-Pass Ratio (Marrdro and I go at it again).

    What the article tells me is that a good running game makes the passing game better and vice versa.
    If the defense is playing back so they can triple team Randy, your average yards per rush attempt go up since there's not much resistance in the middle of the field.
    If your superstar RB draws 8 or 9 into the box, your average WRs should be able to get more open down field more often.
    I think that's why they call it a TEAM sport

    Couldn't agree more Marr.
    Seems to me nearly every personell move we've made since Wilf took over has leaned toward running the ball and playing defense.
    Our passing game has been on the back burner with rookies and castoffs at WR and QB, but we're about to see (hopefully!!) that youth come into their own, and the WCO people have been looking for finally come out of the closet.
    I think there's a strong possibility that we have only seen about 10% of the Chiller's KAO.
    So far, it looks to me, that our offensive game plan is similar to tried and true Steelers football...Defense, Running, and lots of cool trick/gadget plays to keep the defense guessing.

    That current ratio of 45 run/55 pass is somewhat due to all the rules leaning toward the passing game and scoring points on flashy plays to sell more NFL.
    With our personell, I'd like to see the opposite (55 run/45 pass) or closer to Marr's 60/40...

    IMHO it is usually a mistake to try and gear your entire game plan toward your opponent's weakness when your strength leans the other way...Case in point: @Detriot week2 2007.
    Control the line, control the time, and give your D a chance to shine!!

    "Balance it on end and thats the third side of the coin!!" -wookiefoot

  5. #15
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,869

    Re: The Optimal Run-Pass Ratio (Marrdro and I go at it again).

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "tastywaves" wrote:
    Interesting read.
    I didn't see what the runass ration was in '06 and '07 for the Vikings, just that they had 52 more carries in '07 then '06.
    It also says the league is at 45:55 ratio which is far from optimum according to his analysis.


    I can follow his analysis and why he comes up with the ratio, but hard to know how much merit to put into it without any teams following it.

    Bottom line what he is saying (I think) is that the ratio is not predicated by your ability to run vs. pass, but rather both phases of the game (running and passing) will benefit if this ratio is maintained no matter the talent.
    It makes sense in a lot of aspects, but hard to translate to a live game.
    The scripting of a large number of plays makes a lot of sense if you buy into this philosophy.
    2007:
    432 Pass attempts
    494 Runs
    ~ 53:47 runassratio

    2006:
    540 Pass attempts
    442 Runs
    ~ 45:55 runass ratio
    Thanks Nodak, looks like total number of offensive plays went down from 982 to 926, but a significant increase in run vs. pass.


    Total yards and points looks like this:

    '06:
    4943 yds; rushing 1820, passing 3123
    TD's: 32

    '07:
    5379 yds; rushing 2634, passing 2745
    TD's: 43

    Less plays in '07 with more overall yardage and more TD's.
    Not much of a case study to support his theory with all the variables, but we definitely were more productive with the plays we ran in '07 vs. '06 and we ran significantly more.
    Interested to see what '08 holds in store for us.

  6. #16
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: The Optimal Run-Pass Ratio (Marrdro and I go at it again).

    "mountainviking" wrote:
    What the article tells me is that a good running game makes the passing game better and vice versa.
    If the defense is playing back so they can triple team Randy, your average yards per rush attempt go up since there's not much resistance in the middle of the field.
    If your superstar RB draws 8 or 9 into the box, your average WRs should be able to get more open down field more often.
    I think that's why they call it a TEAM sport

    Couldn't agree more Marr.
    Seems to me nearly every personell move we've made since Wilf took over has leaned toward running the ball and playing defense.
    Our passing game has been on the back burner with rookies and castoffs at WR and QB, but we're about to see (hopefully!!) that youth come into their own, and the WCO people have been looking for finally come out of the closet.
    I think there's a strong possibility that we have only seen about 10% of the Chiller's KAO.
    So far, it looks to me, that our offensive game plan is similar to tried and true Steelers football...Defense, Running, and lots of cool trick/gadget plays to keep the defense guessing.

    That current ratio of 45 run/55 pass is somewhat due to all the rules leaning toward the passing game and scoring points on flashy plays to sell more NFL.
    With our personell, I'd like to see the opposite (55 run/45 pass) or closer to Marr's 60/40...

    IMHO it is usually a mistake to try and gear your entire game plan toward your opponent's weakness when your strength leans the other way...Case in point: @Detriot week2 2007.
    First of all, how dare you call it "Marr's 60/40." I am extremely angry about that comment. When Marr was arguing that the WCO uses the pass to set up the run, I was saying 60/40. When Marr was saying Bobby Wade was going to open up our passing game and surprise people, I was saying 60/40. When other posters were saying we ran too much, we were predictable, and the run game was becoming ineffective, I was saying 60/40. When Marr was suggesting Chilly was a good coach, I wanted Marty Schottenheimer (Martyball = 60/40). Even to this day Marr argues that 60/40 is a balanced offense (the simple fact that 60 does not equal 40 obviously means it is not balanced) when it is not. It is run heavy, which is the playbook I use when playing with the Vikings in Madden. I have one picture for every victory in the Childress regime. 8 of them are running plays. You do the math. It is not Marr's 60/40. It is MY 60/40.

    Anyways,

    Another fascinating part of the article is how strongly it supports the playaction pass. Passing against a Run Defense provides the greatest advantage for the offense. At the same time it explains why our pass defense is so bad. Maybe we key on the run too much and allow the offense to make use of the +9 advantage?

    I am beginning to think that we have finally found Childress' blueprint to offensive success.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  7. #17
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,916

    Re: The Optimal Run-Pass Ratio (Marrdro and I go at it again).

    "V" wrote:
    "mountainviking" wrote:
    What the article tells me is that a good running game makes the passing game better and vice versa.
    If the defense is playing back so they can triple team Randy, your average yards per rush attempt go up since there's not much resistance in the middle of the field.
    If your superstar RB draws 8 or 9 into the box, your average WRs should be able to get more open down field more often.
    I think that's why they call it a TEAM sport

    Couldn't agree more Marr.
    Seems to me nearly every personell move we've made since Wilf took over has leaned toward running the ball and playing defense.
    Our passing game has been on the back burner with rookies and castoffs at WR and QB, but we're about to see (hopefully!!) that youth come into their own, and the WCO people have been looking for finally come out of the closet.
    I think there's a strong possibility that we have only seen about 10% of the Chiller's KAO.
    So far, it looks to me, that our offensive game plan is similar to tried and true Steelers football...Defense, Running, and lots of cool trick/gadget plays to keep the defense guessing.

    That current ratio of 45 run/55 pass is somewhat due to all the rules leaning toward the passing game and scoring points on flashy plays to sell more NFL.
    With our personell, I'd like to see the opposite (55 run/45 pass) or closer to Marr's 60/40...

    IMHO it is usually a mistake to try and gear your entire game plan toward your opponent's weakness when your strength leans the other way...Case in point: @Detriot week2 2007.
    First of all, how dare you call it "Marr's 60/40." I am extremely angry about that comment. When Marr was arguing that the WCO uses the pass to set up the run, I was saying 60/40. When Marr was saying Bobby Wade was going to open up our passing game and surprise people, I was saying 60/40. When other posters were saying we ran too much, we were predictable, and the run game was becoming ineffective, I was saying 60/40. When Marr was suggesting Chilly was a good coach, I wanted Marty Schottenheimer (Martyball = 60/40). Even to this day Marr argues that 60/40 is a balanced offense (the simple fact that 60 does not equal 40 obviously means it is not balanced) when it is not. It is run heavy, which is the playbook I use when playing with the Vikings in Madden. It is not Marr's 60/40. It is MY 60/40.

    Anyways,

    Another fascinating part of the article is how strongly it supports the playaction pass. Passing against a Run Defense provides the greatest advantage for the offense. At the same time it explains why our pass defense is so bad. Maybe we key on the run too much and allow the offense to make use of the +9 advantage?

    I am beginning to think that we have finally found Childress' blueprint to offensive success.
    LOL, V is right.
    He is the one who said it, I just say its balanced and keep trying to convince him of it, however, I never argued that our scheme was to have the pass set up the run.


    Quite the contrary, I have always contended that we run to set up the pass and have hammered that home every chance I get......

    Good discussion (with lots of links) between me and Davike.
    Were has that guy been of late by the way?
    http://www.purplepride.org/forums/in...6613#msg746613

    Here is another one between me and Davike.....
    http://www.purplepride.org/forums/in...7982#msg727982

    Long story short, I think it would be pretty hard for you to find something were I said our scheme was a pass first offense.
    Heck, you can even find stuff were I argued that we needed a RB the year we drafted AD because CT broke down at the end of his first year, and a bunch of you argued that we needed a WR instead.
    ;D
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  8. #18
    VikingMike's Avatar
    VikingMike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: The Optimal Run-Pass Ratio (Marrdro and I go at it again).

    "V" wrote:
    "kevoncox" wrote:
    Here is the problemw ith comparing 2006 to 2007.
    The teams we played were not the same teams. Hence, our gameplan is completely different.
    I wager game planing for the black and blue AFC North vs. the Peace of cake AFC east would yeild a different offense. Teams aren't the same year to year. I believe if Tommie Harris and BU goes out with an injury, we will probally try to utilize more runs up the gut.
    True, when looking at it from a personnell perspective. However, the article suggests that no matter who you play (or for that matter what your own strengths are) a 63:37 runass ratio is best.

    In other words, the most effective offense is one that can run the ball effectively and pass efficiently enough to keep the defense honest. That is what I have been saying for more than a year now.

    Of course, playoff success and Super Bowl winners totally derail my argument.

    If you dig into that site, you will find the most intense sports graph I have ever seen.

    That's pretty awesome...when I changed the parameters to FUM RATE, our balloon grew exponentially! Who was our QB in 2002? ;D
    Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. - H.L. Mencken

    Come from the land of the ice and snow...

  9. #19
    mountainviking's Avatar
    mountainviking is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,840

    Re: The Optimal Run-Pass Ratio (Marrdro and I go at it again).

    Sorry V!
    No offense intended...Now that you point it out, I do recall agreeing with you on this in a thread somewhere during last season...But, just based on this thread, it seemed you were arguing for closer to 50/50 and Marr was saying 60/40.
    I guess I missed the whole its not even part of the argument.

    Maybe, the larger average per catch than carry balances it out yardage wise...depending on what you'r looking to "balance."

    5.3 rush avg * 60 plays = 318 yards
    6.8 pass avg * 40 plays= 272

    5.3 rush avg * 55 plays = 291.5
    6.8 pass avg * 45 plays = 306

    Another reason the league passes more on average...multiplying by a bigger average give a bigger total.
    Control the line, control the time, and give your D a chance to shine!!

    "Balance it on end and thats the third side of the coin!!" -wookiefoot

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,206

    Re: The Optimal Run-Pass Ratio (Marrdro and I go at it again).

    This is an interesting idea, but it's totally flawed.


    There are two points that are being taken from this.
    First, that the optimum runass ratio is 63:37.
    Second, that the ratio should stay the same even though the strength of your running game changes.
    Both of these points are almost certainly FALSE, but are at least not proven by this analysis.

    For the first point, the numbers chosen for the payoffs in his matrix have no statistical basis.
    They're based entirely on guesswork.
    Change those numbers and you change the optimum runass ratio.

    For example, I could use this matrix instead, because I believe that running plays are more successful on average than in the original matrix:

    Run D Pass D
    Run -1 5
    Pass 7 -2

    Again, our 'optimum' is X (percentage of passing plays), which is found when Yrund = Ypassd, or:

    -1+8*X = 5 - 7*X
    15*X = 6
    X = 6/15 = 0.40

    Now we should be passing 40% of the time and only running 60%.
    So changing the numbers in the matrix changes the percentage.
    The numbers in the matrix are then all important if we want to determine the correct percentage.
    My numbers were fairly arbitrary, but so were those given in the article.
    If there were some broad statistical analysis used to determine the numbers then maybe you could use the answer you got.
    But the 63% run to 37% pass is next to meaningless.

    As to the second point, the conclusion is again based on an arbitrary assumption.
    Specifically the matrix is changed to increase the run payoffs equally against both run and pass defenses.
    That is the decision that leads to the result found in the article.

    But why should that be true?
    Why shouldn't I get more benefit running against a pass defense than a run defense or the other way around?
    If I did assume one improved more than the other, then I would find that there is a different optimum ratio.

    For example, If I modify his Star Running Back matrix by deciding that the advantage is actually greater against pass defenses - say, +2 instead of +1 - then I have this matrix:

    Run D Pass D
    Run -2 6
    Pass 9 -3

    This time we find the optimum runass ratio with this equation:

    -2+11*X = 6 - 9*X
    20*X = 8
    X = 8/20 = 0.40

    So by increasing the effectiveness of the run against a pass defense, we find we should pass more.
    Again, this is entirely dependent on what numbers we choose to modify the payoffs with.
    Since the numbers I've chosen and those used in the article are based on 'gut-feeling' more than anything, you should not assume that the results are accurate.

    So my points are three-fold:
    1) don't use the numbers given in this article to argue what runass ratio should be for the Vikes;
    2) don't believe that the runass ratio should stay the same when the effectiveness of one or the other changes; and
    3) it's okay to believe that it would be useful and interesting to see a more detailed game theory analysis of play calling based on statistical data and not just random numbers.
    When the age of the Vikings came to a close, they must have sensed it. Probably, they gathered together one evening, slapped each other on the back and said, "Hey, good job." - Jack Handey [Deep Thoughts]

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. where is Marrdro?
    By El Vikingo in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-08-2009, 01:39 PM
  2. Why Oh Why Marrdro?
    By V4L in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 12-29-2008, 07:23 AM
  3. NFC Team Outlooks: 2006 Run/Pass Ratio Significance
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 07-07-2007, 11:47 AM
  4. The "Michael Ratio"...?
    By RandyMoss8404 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 08-23-2005, 04:48 PM
  5. The Randy Ratio
    By in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-25-2002, 02:20 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •