• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Moneyball Comes to Cleveland

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Was thinking this morning: is it possible that the Browns were trying to lose? Like between the coaching blunders (and I mean not just Hue, but G Williams), the whole "roller coaster" comment by DePodesta, the various obvious roster flaws, personnel decisions, etc., is there a possibility that we were trying to tank? Like every player wanted to win, and I really do think that they played hard, and we even had our own competition tell us that we aren't as bad as our record (IIRC, it was a Lions player).

-How in the world does it make sense to line a player up 30 yards off the ball?
-How do you cut Osweiller? How do you NOT bring in another vet at least? Like who can even help these dotards in the QB room?
-We handed the ball to a Rookie and he went downhill fast. Then we sat him then restarted him. I just can't even...
-How do you not address the free safety position before we hit camp? Then you cut Haden who could have been easily the best FS on our roster, just based on experience alone.
-We couldn't have known that Britt would do us like that, as far as drop off. Then we got hit with an injury to Coleman... but after that, with a rookie QB, either you shut it down or you make a trade.

The ONLY explanation that I can put a spin on that would allow for me to even entertain the thought that we aren't completely inept is that DePodesta has a plan. It's like being an atheist and finding out you have cancer and saying G-d has a plan. It's nothing but faith at this point for any fans left. I am one of them: I actually am dumb enough to believe that there's a plan that DePodesta has in place.

The moment he gets fired is the moment where I won't even check the scores.

That theory doesn't really hold up because, if that was the case, Hue wouldn't have started undermining the front office, they wouldn't have tried to trade for AJ fucking McCarron, they wouldn't have fired Sashi for (probably) intentionally sabotaging that trade, and the coach wouldn't have thrown all the players under the bus to cover for himself.
 
That theory doesn't really hold up because, if that was the case, Hue wouldn't have started undermining the front office, they wouldn't have tried to trade for AJ fucking McCarron, they wouldn't have fired Sashi for (probably) intentionally sabotaging that trade, and the coach wouldn't have thrown all the players under the bus to cover for himself.

Your faith isn't blind enough. It's just like arguing about G-d with someone - there's no way to "win" this argument.
-Hue undermined the front office how? I will skip that one until I know the specifics.
-Did they really try to trade for AJMC? If it was a full-fledged effort and he sucks, then we still would have sucked. You did say "fucking" McC to emphasize that he sucks, right? If they didn't try to really complete the trade because AJMC sucks, that'd make sense too b/c we wanted to appear like we were trying to get a vet QB when we really did just want to save the draft capital. Or maybe Sashi just torpedoed the deal because he thought it was an awful one.
-Sashi did suck. That's part of my theory - he was inadequate to get us to where we needed to go. We'll see if he gets another GM job but as of now, he didn't know he was part of the BIG plan to get fired and be a scapegoat, but he was. I also think he might have botched that trade on purpose, which is actually hilarious and a good move, but it's partially his fault that we had a few gaping holes on our team. I don't think Sashi was stupid nor do I think he'd suck forever if given the time, but any new GM that isn't groomed to be one is going to suck for a while. We also missed out on QBs in the draft, but that's certainly not all his fault.
 
Your faith isn't blind enough. It's just like arguing about G-d with someone - there's no way to "win" this argument.
-Hue undermined the front office how? I will skip that one until I know the specifics.
-Did they really try to trade for AJMC? If it was a full-fledged effort and he sucks, then we still would have sucked. You did say "fucking" McC to emphasize that he sucks, right? If they didn't try to really complete the trade because AJMC sucks, that'd make sense too b/c we wanted to appear like we were trying to get a vet QB when we really did just want to save the draft capital. Or maybe Sashi just torpedoed the deal because he thought it was an awful one.
-Sashi did suck. That's part of my theory - he was inadequate to get us to where we needed to go. We'll see if he gets another GM job but as of now, he didn't know he was part of the BIG plan to get fired and be a scapegoat, but he was. I also think he might have botched that trade on purpose, which is actually hilarious and a good move, but it's partially his fault that we had a few gaping holes on our team. I don't think Sashi was stupid nor do I think he'd suck forever if given the time, but any new GM that isn't groomed to be one is going to suck for a while. We also missed out on QBs in the draft, but that's certainly not all his fault.
Theory:

Sashi and Hue agreed to go all in on a tank for this season. Jimmy Haslam inferred as much during one of the early season press conferences, he said he wasn't looking at the W/L record or something to that effect.

then at some point Jimmy Haslam's seat starts to get hot with the prospect of a perfect 0-16 season. Haslam goes to Hue, WTF? I said we could be bad but not THIS bad. Hue asks Sashi if he can somehow get a QB on the roster who might stand a chance of winning a game and Sashi is reluctant, his plan to do a total tank is working beyond his best expectations.Then, too little, too late, Hue and Jummi try to get Sashi to pull the trigger on McCaron and the rest is history.

So this scenario assumes Sashi sold Hue and Jimmy on a tank, but they ended up not being all in on such a total and completely dismal tank job like we had when the realize they don't have a single QB on the roster who might succeed at winning a single game so Jimmy and GHue get cold feet on the zero wins concept. Hue and Jimmy try to get Sashi to do something, anything, and when Sashi fails (which was actually in our longer term best interest) Jimmy uses that as the excuse to give Sashi the axe and bring in the seasoned GM in Dorsey who Jimmy has had his eye on.
 
Found this article on how important passing is. Seems statistically and analytically driven, so it’s going in this thread. Might provide insight into draft, FA, DC hiring, etc.:

https://thepowerrank.com/2018/09/24/the-surprising-truth-about-passing-and-rushing-in-the-nfl/
Yeppp. @priceFTW and myself both are pretty familiar with analytics and have made this point.

Passing is worth a significantly greater yards per attempt as opposed to running. Moreover, even if you run to setup the pass, that’s inherently easy to beat: the defense just sends the house to stop the run until the other team starts passing.

But it’s more than that, too. Running is an inherently simple play. There are a few different types of blocking schemes, but independent of passing, it’s a limited play. I.E., a unique passing game actually opens up the run.

Finally, most running is dependent on the offensive line. Studies have looked at a team’s running yards per season. What they found is that most “elite” RBs are products of elite offensive lines. There generally are only 2-5 runningbacks per season that have elite seasons without an elite offensive line.

I do think power running will slowly become more valuable, and you see why with Chubb, Zeke, Gurley, etc. Modern defenses generally are built to defend speed in the passing game. This means strong runningbacks will have a size and strength advantage compared to linebackers.

For running to have significant value, teams need a back that gets yard after contact, who can pass block, and who can be a threat in the receiving game. This is why a guy like Gurley is so valuable. Because his presence improves the passing game, and consequently, improves his own running game.
 
I noticed that Foles paid Philly back to become a free agent, and I believe it came off of their cap going forward. This sounds like it could be either a disaster or a genius moneyball type thing.

Like in this specific scenario, perhaps a good bet by the GM that went badly. I wonder if there’s a proper way to structure this type of arrangement where it benefits the team. Can a team create this kind of option? Forcing a payback by a player to make them a free agent? It’s almost like a reverse signing bonus.

What if a player’s last year was say $10M with a $7M player option to escape? Just a neat concept overall that I hadn’t heard of.
 
Yeppp. @priceFTW and myself both are pretty familiar with analytics and have made this point.

Passing is worth a significantly greater yards per attempt as opposed to running. Moreover, even if you run to setup the pass, that’s inherently easy to beat: the defense just sends the house to stop the run until the other team starts passing.

But it’s more than that, too. Running is an inherently simple play. There are a few different types of blocking schemes, but independent of passing, it’s a limited play. I.E., a unique passing game actually opens up the run.

Finally, most running is dependent on the offensive line. Studies have looked at a team’s running yards per season. What they found is that most “elite” RBs are products of elite offensive lines. There generally are only 2-5 runningbacks per season that have elite seasons without an elite offensive line.

I do think power running will slowly become more valuable, and you see why with Chubb, Zeke, Gurley, etc. Modern defenses generally are built to defend speed in the passing game. This means strong runningbacks will have a size and strength advantage compared to linebackers.

For running to have significant value, teams need a back that gets yard after contact, who can pass block, and who can be a threat in the receiving game. This is why a guy like Gurley is so valuable. Because his presence improves the passing game, and consequently, improves his own running game.

Good stuff. The only things that I think get lost in the data shuffle about the run are:
Understanding how much of a weapon it is to be able to control the clock. Almost by definition, end of half and of course end of game yards are more valuable, and controlling that clock can amount to not only a touchdown but an additional possession, so almost like a turnover.

The run wears down defenses. Is that proven or potentially just old school dogma?

There are situations where a rush could have a higher probability of success, like maybe 3rd and 2. No dropped passes, batted balls, potentially less chance for penalties (is that true?).

So yes the pass is better, but what’s so fun about football is how these things are complex and inter-related.
 
Good stuff. The only things that I think get lost in the data shuffle about the run are:
Understanding how much of a weapon it is to be able to control the clock. Almost by definition, end of half and of course end of game yards are more valuable, and controlling that clock can amount to not only a touchdown but an additional possession, so almost like a turnover.

So controlling the clock is actually dogma that has never been proven true. For every game like Cowboys-Eagles this year, you also have teams like the Seahawks who got killed against good teams because they tried to control the clock.

What I think is going on there is an endogeneity problem. My guess is that running --> controlling the clock --> winning is incorrect and there is at least one omitted variable. First, short passing can also control the clock just as well while gaining more yardage, so clock control is probably correlated with creative play-calling. Second, teams that win time of possession were only slightly above .500 this year. Teams that control the clock and win are probably, again, correlated with creative play-calling and strong players, whether they run or pass.

The run wears down defenses. Is that proven or potentially just old school dogma?
Depends on the type of running. By the mid-2000s, NFL defenses were designed to be physical, so power running no longer wore out the defense. But, having a RB that was dominant in the pass game surrounded by a fast offense did wear down defenses. It is unclear if any running, in the current NFL, actually wears down defenses.


There are situations where a rush could have a higher probability of success, like maybe 3rd and 2. No dropped passes, batted balls, potentially less chance for penalties (is that true?).

The reason running on 3rd and 2 is valuable is because of the expected points added. Even in those situations, running is most likely worth less YPA than passing, but converting a first down inherently adds the potential for more yards post-down. Thus, in those situations, YPA is not the correct metric. First down conversion rate is probably the better idea.

So yes the pass is better, but what’s so fun about football is how these things are complex and inter-related.
I never said "pass is better." I said that RBs, as a position group, are significantly overvalued. I also think that running into a box with six+ defenders, which happens on the grand majority of first downs for every team, is a really stupid play. But teams like the Rams, Patriots, and Saints demonstrated all season how to call run plays that force a defense to adjust.
 
So controlling the clock is actually dogma that has never been proven true. For every game like Cowboys-Eagles this year, you also have teams like the Seahawks who got killed against good teams because they tried to control the clock.

What I think is going on there is an endogeneity problem. My guess is that running --> controlling the clock --> winning is incorrect and there is at least one omitted variable. First, short passing can also control the clock just as well while gaining more yardage, so clock control is probably correlated with creative play-calling. Second, teams that win time of possession were only slightly above .500 this year. Teams that control the clock and win are probably, again, correlated with creative play-calling and strong players, whether they run or pass.


Depends on the type of running. By the mid-2000s, NFL defenses were designed to be physical, so power running no longer wore out the defense. But, having a RB that was dominant in the pass game surrounded by a fast offense did wear down defenses. It is unclear if any running, in the current NFL, actually wears down defenses.




The reason running on 3rd and 2 is valuable is because of the expected points added. Even in those situations, running is most likely worth less YPA than passing, but converting a first down inherently adds the potential for more yards post-down. Thus, in those situations, YPA is not the correct metric. First down conversion rate is probably the better idea.


I never said "pass is better." I said that RBs, as a position group, are significantly overvalued. I also think that running into a box with six+ defenders, which happens on the grand majority of first downs for every team, is a really stupid play. But teams like the Rams, Patriots, and Saints demonstrated all season how to call run plays that force a defense to adjust.

I was the one saying passing is better. It was what I posted a few posts up.

I think TOP and winning correlation would be much too noisey for what I am talking about. I am speaking of selectively being able to run to add to TOP during the 2 minute drill so that the other team has low odds to score after you do, for example.

And I get that short passing can control the clock, but if it’s 3rd and 2, a short pass can and will fall incomplete. Of course a run might come up short, but you know that will cost the other team a time out or the clock will bleed.

So essentially it sounds like you are trying to debate me but I was just spitballing. There’s plenty of hidden data in some of the larger data, and my point was simply that running has its place where it is the most effective play. In fact, judging by trends, to your point there’s a chance that certain situational running will become even more important. I was just thinking about those situations.
 
I was the one saying passing is better. It was what I posted a few posts up.

Right, and I am saying it is better, but only because most of the NFL has not figured out the right way to run the ball.

I think TOP and winning correlation would be much too noisey for what I am talking about. I am speaking of selectively being able to run to add to TOP during the 2 minute drill so that the other team has low odds to score after you do, for example.

Right, that's exactly my point. But the noise works in both ways. There is an endogenous variable there that effects both TOP and winning correlation.

And I get that short passing can control the clock, but if it’s 3rd and 2, a short pass can and will fall incomplete. Of course a run might come up short, but you know that will cost the other team a time out or the clock will bleed.
Agreed, I said as much, running on 3rd and 2 is a better play-call, generally speaking, because of the added-value from a down conversion.

So essentially it sounds like you are trying to debate me but I was just spitballing. There’s plenty of hidden data in some of the larger data, and my point was simply that running has its place where it is the most effective play. In fact, judging by trends, to your point there’s a chance that certain situational running will become even more important. I was just thinking about those situations.
Yeah, and I agree with all of this, the other thing about the NFL is that play value is partially determined by the strength, size, and speed of opposing players. Power running is more valuable now than it was a decade ago because defenses are faster, but also are smaller.
 
Right, and I am saying it is better, but only because most of the NFL has not figured out the right way to run the ball.



Right, that's exactly my point. But the noise works in both ways. There is an endogenous variable there that effects both TOP and winning correlation.


Agreed, I said as much, running on 3rd and 2 is a better play-call, generally speaking, because of the added-value from a down conversion.


Yeah, and I agree with all of this, the other thing about the NFL is that play value is partially determined by the strength, size, and speed of opposing players. Power running is more valuable now than it was a decade ago because defenses are faster, but also are smaller.

Please quantify the value of Kareem Hunt being awesome next to Chubb & Duke.
 
Please quantify the value of Kareem Hunt being awesome next to Chubb & Duke.
I think you’re being mildly facetious but there actually is a problem... no quantitative study done has found a RB’s independent value to be statistically significant when controlling for his offensive line. Certain RBs gain value as blockers and pass catchers, though.

My honest opinion is Duke gets traded this summer. I don’t want that but it seems increasingly likely to me with this move. I hope I’m totally wrong.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top