[BostonCard]

I’m not sure yp/rush attempt is always the right metric.

Let’s look at the extremes:

Team A has 59 yds rushing at halftime, from 9 rushes for no gain and one rush for 59 yds. 5.9 yards per rush.

Team B has 58 rushing yards, 10 carries, all for exactly 5.8 yds each time. 5.8 yards per rush.

Is Team A rushing “better” or more efficiently than Team B? Which team’s running game would you feel better about? Suppose your #1 back gets hurt - which line gives your #2 back a better chance to succeed?




[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=18454.msg220228#msg220228 date=1515095521]
We averaged 5.9 yards per rush attempt, seventh in the country.
We didn't run well?
We could have run far more effectively?

[/quote]

I agree that yards per cary is not a perfect metric, and this year, in particular, we've been a bit more prone to high average yards per cary that has been skewed upwards by the big play.  Indeed, if you look at adjusted line rate here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaol, you get some sense of the extent to which this is a problem (adjusted line yards isolates the yards that are "due" to the offensive line):

Adjusted Line Yards (ALY): Statistic that attempts to, even to a small extent, separate the ability of a running back from the ability of the offensive line. Adjusted Line Yards begin as a measure of average rushing yards per play by running backs only, adjusted in the following way:

0-4 yards: 100% strength
5-10 yards: 50% strength
11+ yards: not included
runs for a loss: 120% strength
Each play is also adjusted based on game situation as well as quality of opponents faced. Adjusted Line Yards can be listed as total or broken down by direction to attempt to isolate ability of specific linemen

If 100 is an average team, we  rated 99.7, ever so slightly below average.

Now, that isn't entirely fair to the run game as a whole either, since giving no credit to the long runs is probably unfair too.  Part of the reason is opponent defenses stack the line, which hurts our adjusted line yards.  But in doing so, they make themselves more prone to the big run.  It's a tradeoff that we seem to be reasonably willing to take.

There is no one stat that encompasses everything.  Football outsider's S&P is a combination of success rate and points per play that captures both efficiency and explosiveness.  Our rushing S&P+ is 109 (again, 100 is an average team against the opponent), which is better than average but ranked 46th.  Interestingly, our passing S&P was basically the same (109.8), so it suggests that our offensive mix was pretty reasonable. (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaoff)

BC

[BostonCard]

I’m not sure yp/rush attempt is always the right metric.

Let’s look at the extremes:

Team A has 59 yds rushing at halftime, from 9 rushes for no gain and one rush for 59 yds. 5.9 yards per rush.

Team B has 58 rushing yards, 10 carries, all for exactly 5.8 yds each time. 5.8 yards per rush.

Is Team A rushing “better” or more efficiently than Team B? Which team’s running game would you feel better about? Suppose your #1 back gets hurt - which line gives your #2 back a better chance to succeed?




[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=18454.msg220228#msg220228 date=1515095521]
We averaged 5.9 yards per rush attempt, seventh in the country.
We didn't run well?
We could have run far more effectively?

[/quote]

I agree that yards per cary is not a perfect metric, and this year, in particular, we've been a bit more prone to high average yards per cary that has been skewed upwards by the big play.  Indeed, if you look at adjusted line rate here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaol, you get some sense of the extent to which this is a problem (adjusted line yards isolates the yards that are "due" to the offensive line):

Adjusted Line Yards (ALY): Statistic that attempts to, even to a small extent, separate the ability of a running back from the ability of the offensive line. Adjusted Line Yards begin as a measure of average rushing yards per play by running backs only, adjusted in the following way:

0-4 yards: 100% strength
5-10 yards: 50% strength
11+ yards: not included
runs for a loss: 120% strength
Each play is also adjusted based on game situation as well as quality of opponents faced. Adjusted Line Yards can be listed as total or broken down by direction to attempt to isolate ability of specific linemen

If 100 is an average team, we  rated 99.7, ever so slightly below average.

Now, that isn't entirely fair to the run game as a whole either, since giving no credit to the long runs is probably unfair too.  Part of the reason is opponent defenses stack the line, which hurts our adjusted line yards.  But in doing so, they make themselves more prone to the big run.  It's a tradeoff that we seem to be reasonably willing to take.

There is no one stat that encompasses everything.  Football outsider's S&P is a combination of success rate and points per play that captures both efficiency and explosiveness.  Our rushing S&P+ is 109 (again, 100 is an average team against the opponent), which is better than average but ranked 46th.  Interestingly, our passing S&P was basically the same (109.8), so it suggests that our offensive mix was pretty reasonable. (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaaoff)

BC