,
(10-17-2022, 08:25 AM)msqueri Wrote: Other teams use shovel passes and shovel draws too. Statistics don't totally capture every nuance but the things that can deflate the run game like not counting those plays or having sack yardage subtracted apply to everybody. If you start to say "but we had a good shovel pass" as an excuse for miserable run stats you will end up in a less accurate place than if you judge by the overall results.
I get that we want to avoid special pleading for every detail of the game, especially if it is a “heads I win/tails you lose scenario, but I do think it is reasonable to frame statistics with additional nuance. Stats are crude measures, and just because they are objective, doesn’t mean that they always accurately convey what happened in the game. If McKee had gotten sacked a half dozen times and lost 30 yards, I think it is reasonable to say that the running game isn’t as bad as the raw stats suggest, and that the passing game wasn’t as good as it seemed. As it happened, McKee only got sacked once, which is pretty good by most standards, so doing the additional math to account for the one carry and minus four or so yards doesn’t change the message much. If you were comparing games, you might even note that McKee got sacked less than he has in the past, to highlight that raw running numbers might be relatively worse than they seem compared to, say, the UW game.
On the other hand, the shovel passes do change the message somewhat. The two (I think) shovel passes were by far the most effective runs of the day, even though they counted as passes statistically they probably added 30 or so yards to Filkins total. 34 caries for about 120 yards isn’t great, or even good, but it’s a not a sub-3 YPC game. Moreover, it’s not like shovel passes have been a regular part of our offense so counting them today while not counting them in other games is making an apples to oranges comparison.
Noting that the shovel passes artificially inflated the passing stats and took away from the running stats isn’t an excuse to inflate run stats that leads to a less accurate picture, but important context to the stats that lead to better understanding of what happened. And the added context makes one think that the running game wasn’t as bad as the stats made it seem, even if, accounting for the shovel passes, it wasn’t that good. In some ways it’s not much different than noting that Filkins fumbled twice and we were lucky to recover both of them, even though the stats show Stanford with zero fumbles lost.
In the end the total offense adds up to 385 yards and 16 points, which is not good. On most days that would not be enough to win a football game. So, big picture, whether you consider the shovel passes runs or passes doesn’t change the conclusion that this is a concern going forward, but it might move me more away from thinking that this was primarily a running problem.
BC