Running Back Success Rates: Iowa's Shonn Greene
by Todd on Feb 24, 2009 9:00 AM CST
in Football
Email
Print
As a quick refresher to those of you who have forgotten how this works (or to those who have never heard of "Running Back Success Rate" before), we judge each run on it's "success" as opposed to yardage gained to get a more accurate picture of how good a running back really is. For a run to be deemed "successful," it must gain at least 40% of the yardage needed to move the chains on 1st down, 60% on 2nd down, and 100% on 3rd and 4th down. This type of metric ignores big run outliers that can skew others like yards per carry averages and simple total yardage figures. Fittingly, we have the poster child for why this is a handy metric to start things off. Shonn Greene finished the year with 1850 total yards and a very solid 6.0 ypc average, yet when we look at his success rate numbers he only comes out with only a 57% rate (excel spreadsheet, 43kb).
There are a couple of interesting things we can take from his numbers:
- If you consider how many of his rushes were for 10+ yards, you'll see that a good 31% of his successful rushes were for very good yardage. This is why I say he's the poster child for big run outliers; his every down production numbers were iffy at times but if he got a hole he was gone.
- Going along with that, his least "successful" performance was actually against a pretty stout run D. Against Penn State, who would finish the season with the #8 rushing defense in the country, Greene managed only a 43% success rate but still ran for 117 yards. In that game he managed 3 runs of 10+ yards and 10 runs of 5+ yards, yet routinely struggled in obvious run/short yardage situations.
- That 117 was his second lowest total of the season. Indiana managed to hold him to "only" 115 yards, but he managed a much more respectable 57% percent success rate against a defense ranked near the bottom of the country (91st) against the run.
- His most productive game of the year was also one of his most successful: Against Wisconsin, Greene rushed for 217 yards and an outstanding 8.7 ypc average, both season highs. He also ran at a 64% success rate and, despite having runs of 52 and 34 yards that helped bump that ypc up to such ridiculous levels, he was also advancing the ball at a steady rate.
- Compare that to his 64% performance against South Carolina: Greene gained 121 yards with a sub par 4.2 ypc average and didn't have a single run go for more than 11 yards (the only game he didn't last season), but he was very successful on 2nd and 3rd down (78% and 75%, respectively, his best "obvious run downs" performance of the season). The total yardage wasn't there, but it was still a solid performance in that he kept the offense and chains steadily moving.
- Amusingly, his most "successful" day came in the loss at Pitt. Greene carried for 147 yards and a 6.4 ypc average, both very solid numbers, and he also ran at a 70% success rate. Too bad the defense couldn't hold off Le'Sean McCoy.
Putting all of this together, we can get a picture of a boom or bust type of back. Obviously you want a back that can bust off big, game changing runs, but if you're going to be a feature back like Greene was for Iowa, breaking the big runs on 1st down while failing to consistently move the chains on 3rd and short isn't really what you want.
*note: I've worked this stuff up for a handful of top non-SEC backs, but mostly we'll be comparing backs in our own league. just an fyi.
29 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm new to this stuff
But explain to me, if you could, why gaining 5 yards on a 2nd and 9 isn’t considered a success. I think most coaches would disagree.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
Correct me if im wrong
That would be a sucsess on 1st down but as you move closer to 4th down, the window for it being a “successful run” gets smaller. If its 2nd and 9, he needed to pick up more like 7-8 yards to make 3rd down more manageable. By only picking up 5 yards, the offense is forced into a 3rd and long not 3rd and short.
Of course OTS can and probably will explain it much better than me.
When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.
And to further elaborate...
…gaining 5 yards on any down is a reasonable run, but you have to take into account that it is 2nd down, and not getting at least 60% of the yardage needed to convert puts the offense “behind schedule,” so to speak.
Right..
I mean Ill take 5 yards a carry any day…but when you need 9…5 doesn’t help anything. That is unless you are trying to give the punter more room or if the offense is in “kill the clock mode”.
I love big runs but ill take a back who understands the offense and is able to pick the yards needed, instead of some show boat who is always trying to take it to the house.
When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.
I don't quite know where to begin on this one
So let’s just jump in.
but when you need 9…5 doesn’t help anything.
I’m not sure in which universe 3rd and 4 is worse than 2nd and 9. They had 4.5 yards per play left before the run, now it’s 4.0. That’s a better situation. That’s a success.
I love big runs but ill take a back who understands the offense and is able to pick the yards needed, instead of some show boat who is always trying to take it to the house.
If you’re calling Shonn Greene a big-play showboat, please sir, blow it straight out your ass, because you have no idea what you’re talking about. Not once did I (having actually watched the Iowa games) see Greene ever go out of bounds too early when it was time to “pick the yards needed” [sic] or start dancing instead of putting his head down and going through his tackler. To try to decide otherwise based on halfway arbitrary system of choosing success, one that neglects the cumulative effects of running a power running game, is goddamn asinine and it makes you look like a fucking fool.
And as for the problematic aspects of the methodology used here, let’s take a look at the Indiana game. 57% success rate, 33% on 3rd down. BOOOOOOO. Here are the third down runs and their results:
3rd and 14, 7 yards gained
3rd and 3, 9 yards gained
3rd and 21, 7 yards gained
Those two “failures” are instances where nobody can seriously expect a tailback to succeed. To give them equal weight as the 3rd and 3, which Greene did succeed on, is a flaw.
You guys can do better than this.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on Feb 24, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions
Dude...
First take a step back and breathe…I didn’t call Greene a show boat nor did Todd……a little sensitive? I was just saying what type of RB i would like to have. I know very little about Shonn and actually could care less…He’s seems to be a good back from what i have read.
I’m sure Todd could give a much better explanation about the RB Success Rate. To me its just a way to determine whether or not a “Run” was successful in picking up the yards needed to gain a 1st down. Its also relative to the down in which the run came on. If its 3rd and 7 and the RB gets 6 yards….is that successful? No…he didn’t pick up the 1st. It looks like on paper that it was a good gain but it didn’t accomplish the goal…to get the 1st down.
When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.
Again, blow it out your ass
You didn’t call Greene a showboat, you merely raised the spectre in the context of his performance. Sorry for putting 2 and 2 together there.
I can figure out the Success Rate thing just fine, and I don’t need it explained to me as if I had the mental acuity of that (rather darling) child in your profile picture. My point isn’t that it’s a “what the hell is this I don’t know what numbers” are situation. It’s that the methodology has serious flaws that clearly led to a very misleading picture of Shonn Greene’s production and, as it so happens, talk of showboating and trying to hit home runs. Iowa has had their share of backs like that over the last 10 years. Greene’s not one of them.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on Feb 24, 2009 12:22 PM CST up reply actions
Im not understanding your
hostility…You act like I called your boy a douche or something.
I’m new to this stuff
But explain to me, if you could, why gaining 5 yards on a 2nd and 9 isn’t considered a success. I think most coaches would disagree.
Sorry if I to put “two and two together”. You came here asking questions and i tried to answer them for you. Todd did much better job, which was to be expected.
LIke I said, I wouldn’t have known much about Shonn if it hadn’t been for Todd’s write up. Your boy seems to be a power runner that when given the chance to break a long one, has that ability. Looking at the data provided and having not seen him play other than the USC game, I could see where Todd might label or describe him as boom-or-bust type back….This actually why im not a huge fan of stats…they paint only one picture when reality is something completely different.
When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.
Dude...
no offense, but stop whining. It’s obvious that you’re butthurt because someone mentioned your beloved Iowa RB in a way that doesn’t suit you. If you have a problem with the system that’s all fine, but at the end of the day it’s a system that another created to analyze RBs. It has nothing to do with you or what you think about it. ANYTHING can be argued to be flawed.
You are the “fucking fool” here and it’s obvious to everyone except you. Please remember that before you reply with, “BUT IT’S FLAWEDDD! HE IS BAD MOUTHING SHONNN!….THEY TUUUKK URRR JOBBBBSSS!”
It's taking an enormous amount of restraint not to escalate this
But out of respect for Todd and RBR, I’ll refrain from using this opportunity to slander an entire state, its eponymous university, and the fans thereof. At no point will I tell any of you to go fuck a hacksaw, and for that I’m proud of my maturity.
I don’t think there’s an inherent bias in this system or that anyone’s out to get Shonn or Iowa or whatever. I do think that there are some glaring weaknesses that ought to be pointed out, and that the disconnect between what happened on the field this year and the results of this study are pretty solid proof. And had someone come up with a dubious formula that “proved” Julio Jones was at best the #4 best receiver for the Tide this season, you’d probably blow a gasket too.
As you were, gents.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on Feb 24, 2009 2:39 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The 'showboat' stuff is between you and bammer...
…but cherry picking a handful of runs that were either “close to being successful” or “doomed for failure” (take that up with the playcaller) doesn’t make the entire methodology useless. I agree with shake n bake that the DVOA approach has a greater level of accuracy by awarding partial points to plays that are at least “useful” if not entirely successful, but for our purposes this works pretty well. Even if you do throw out 3rd and long rushes, which typically have very little chance of success (though considering Greene was routinely breaking off big gains on 1st down, giving him the ball on what are typically passing downs isn’t horrible strategy), it’s still fairly evident that Greene was not as consistent of a runner as his total yardage might indicate.
believe me
we blame the playcaller for plenty.
go to BHGP and search KOK. Especially look at the gamethread comments and HFMR’s KOK stories.
I ain't tryin' do you, I'm just tryin' do me
Last album did two, I'm just tryin' do three.
-Young Jeezy "I Luv It
by shake n bake on Feb 24, 2009 11:57 AM CST up reply actions
too good not to share
HFMR’s KOK Stories
http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2008/11/13/660190/the-odd-couple
http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2008/12/20/698392/return-of-the-odd-couple
http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2009/2/13/758121/ken-o-keefe-looking-forwar
I ain't tryin' do you, I'm just tryin' do me
Last album did two, I'm just tryin' do three.
-Young Jeezy "I Luv It
by shake n bake on Feb 24, 2009 12:08 PM CST up reply actions
I didn't say it made the thing useless
I said that the lack of ability to differentiate between a give-up run and an actual missed opportunity for success is a substantial flaw in your methodology. Further, I maintain that most coaches would have a different view of “success” as running plays go, especially on second and long. Even 4 yards on 2nd and 9 gives a quarterback a much better chance of converting the 3rd down, to say nothing of, oh I don’t know, 7 yards on 2nd and 15. You’re entitled to your own definition of “success,” but if it leads you to believe that Shonn Freaking Greene of all backs is some boom-or-bust jackoff, then perhaps the deficiency is in your model, not its subject.
(also, not to nitpick, but there was a 2nd and 3 for 11 yards against Penn State that you gave an N. Not terribly statistically significant in the long run, but still, accuracy uber alles).
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on Feb 24, 2009 12:28 PM CST up reply actions
I think we're arguing semantics on this one, honestly...
When I say boom or bust back, I’m saying that Greene is a straight ahead power runner that’s going to either level a guy and extend the play to the second level (and, considering he’s a load to take down, god help the DBs of the Big Ten), or he’s going to get shut down at (or near) the line.
I should also have noted...
…that Greene touched the ball A LOT. Only Donald Brown, Javon Ringer, and Le’Sean McCoy had more carries (and McCoy only had one more).
something more complicated like FO's DVOA/DYAR for the Pro's is better with stuff like that
it gives fractional success points, instead of just writing off a run that was useful, but not “successful”.
I ain't tryin' do you, I'm just tryin' do me
Last album did two, I'm just tryin' do three.
-Young Jeezy "I Luv It
by shake n bake on Feb 24, 2009 11:07 AM CST up reply actions
True...
…their DVOA stuff is amazing. I’d love to branch out into that more next season with the SEC and see what we come up with.
What's normal for a college back
I love Football Outsiders and their use of success rate for backs, but if Greene had a success rate of only 57% the average is much higher for college backs. 57% would have been 3rd in the NFL last season.
I ain't tryin' do you, I'm just tryin' do me
Last album did two, I'm just tryin' do three.
-Young Jeezy "I Luv It
It is....
That’s generally why at least a 4.0 ypc average is considered good in the pros, while college backs need to top 5.0 to be considered above average.
I do remember some key short yardage failures
but they tended in involve an unblocked LB 2 yards into the backfield
I ain't tryin' do you, I'm just tryin' do me
Last album did two, I'm just tryin' do three.
-Young Jeezy "I Luv It
by shake n bake on Feb 24, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions
I think I can see the problem I'm having with this
Greene is the opposite extreme of the guys I usually think of as boom or bust. The guys that are often spectacularly talented, but try to do too much. They run East-West, they dance instead of plowing forward, they hurt the team by trying to hit a home run every time.
Greene is the opposite, he can’t run sideways or try to bust everything outside. All he can do is pick the right hole and blast the first guy that comes in his path. If the blocking isn’t there all he can do is fall forward. He can hardly ever make something out of nothing, he can just make every something a bit more.
I ain't tryin' do you, I'm just tryin' do me
Last album did two, I'm just tryin' do three.
-Young Jeezy "I Luv It
Which is what...
….this proves in my mind. That’s why I said “his every down production numbers were iffy at times but if he got a hole he was gone.”
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
