Do the Patriots pass excessively to run up the score?

by tommasse on Nov 11, 2007 2:48 PM EST in News Comment 13 comments

Another Myth Busted
Patriots Don't Pass to Run Up Score

During their 9-0 run in which the New England Patriots have been abusing the NFL record book, they've oft been accused to passing excessively in "running up the score." But do the numbers support such allegations?

Let's take a look.

The following table shows the NFL teams leading the league in pass attempts. The Patriots are 5th in the league.

PR	RR	Team	Pass Att.	Rush Att.	Pct. Pass Plays
1	24	Saints	355	203	62.3
2	32	Packers	308	175	63.8
3	27	Texans	308	238	56.4
4	19	Ravens	306	211	59.2
5	8	Patriots	305	287	51.5
6	29	Rams	297	190	61.0
7	28	Bengals	294	198	59.8
8	31	Saints	293	200	59.4
9	22	Jets	291	235	55.3
10	14	Eagles	287	204	58.5
?	?	2004 Colts	526	427	55.2

PR = Passing Rank; RR = Rushing Rank

? = Colts 2004 rankings not immediately available.

The Patriots pass the ball a meager 51.5 percent of the time. It's like when Brad Garrett appeared as "Tony," Jerry Seinfeld's mechanic in the Seinfeld episode "The Bottle Deposit." Tony asks Jerry if he rotates his tires.

Jerry: Well, I try to rotate the tires ..
Tony: You don't try. You do it!
Tony continues.
Tony: Did you know that 51 percent of all turns are right turns?

You're left to think: "Wow. Pretty much half of them."

Same thing here. Tony's argument is as ludicrous as the one people have been using to imply the Patriots are padding Brady's stats and running up the score -- especially when you consider that of the teams ranking in the top 10 of passing attempts, the Patriots are last among them in percentage of pass plays.

Then note that during 2004, the year the Colts ran up the score in a clear effort to help Peyton Manning break Dan Marino's single-season touchdown record, they passed the ball significantly more often (55.2 percent) than New England has this season. (But also note that the 2004 Colts would also be 10th this season, 0.1 percent after the Jets.)

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think there's a flaw.

can you make a table that shows passing percentages, and rank the teams by average margin of victory?

many of the teams that you list above have losing records, or have won their games by a relatively small margin. as a result, their passing percentages would trend very high due to heavy second half passing in order to catch up. a better stat might be to look at games with lopsided scores, and the passing percentage of the victor. given that the strived for percentage is 50%, any deviation from that can be considered either "running up the score" or "rubbing your nose in it" depending on which side you end up on. (note: I have never been a fan of "running out the clock" early.)

I think the best defense against the "running up the score" attack is simply to point out that the pats have a very balanced attack, and that at most they are guilty of failing to not score points as well as any other team in the NFL... In fact they are ranked last in that category...

by circusboy on Nov 11, 2007 3:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I could probably make such a chart

But I don't have the time to compile such complex statistics. I made this table based on statistics that are readily available.

That said:

the 2004 Colts still threw close to 4 percent of the time more than the Patriots have this season
The Patriots are throwing barely more than 50 percent of the time

There's simply no evidence that says the Patriots are passing excessively, as is the implication.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Nov 11, 2007 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There's also the issue...

...that the Pats probably would run the ball more often in the fourth quarter if their starter hadn't been hurt all year, their top backup now on IR, and their third option more of a third down back than anything else. They just don't have the depth at RB to risk any more injuries there, and injuries would be more likely if they ran the ball every down late in the game when "everyone knows" they're going to run the ball.

by RSNexile on Nov 11, 2007 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

didn't mean to imply they were.

I'm just compulsively nitpicky about statistics and their uses. I think I heard that quote from mark twain at a particular point in my development, and it stuck...

I probably spend too much time trying to figure out all the other ways one can interpret the same set of statistics. though it is a habit that makes political polling more fun to follow...

by circusboy on Nov 11, 2007 3:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No offense taken

Just not possible to compile and analyze statistics of all kinds and still have a job and a life and stuff.

And it's funny, I was just ready to quote Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

That said, in some cases, when you don't have them, all you have are the faulty observations of others. It'd be nice to have additional corroborating evidence, but I think it's clear that the Patriots don't continue passing specifically to run up the score.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Nov 11, 2007 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pretty Chart

...but this whole discussion seems pretty fruitless to me. Running up the score is in the eye of the beholder, most of the time. I question whether there is such a thing in professional sports, anyway. In thinking about it, the only reason we have such a concept is youth athletics. And the only reason the concept exists there is because there is an adult directing the actions of the kids involved, thus the assumed responsibility for fragile young psychologies.

Are we really so bound by the rules of the game that we are compelled to play to an obvious outcome? As long as the clock is running, the game is on. With kids, we switch to a running clock, call all runs (supposedly they're easier to stop), etc. What's the lesson? Not to rub it in, I guess. To win with "class."

IMO, you can win a rout with class. Don't taunt, don't take cheap shots.

I'm off on a tangent. You can marshal all the statistical support you want--a truly irrational point of view cannot be appealed to with rational argumentation. You're not going to change any minds. I wouldn't even engage in the argument any more--it strikes me as a waste of time.

But in the interest of time-wasting, I'd say that while the Pats have had to struggle with the mediocrity of their opposition, it is possible (when up 52 to 0, for example) to switch to a more time-consuming mode of offense.

For my money, Joe Gibbs had it coming. That's the way the ball bounces, my friends.

Patriots and more at Borrowed Suits

by JohnHannahRules on Nov 12, 2007 10:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Joe Gibbs said...

...the Pats weren't running up the score against his team, so any claim to the contrary is moot anyway.

by RSNexile on Nov 12, 2007 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Green Bay 34, Minnesota 0

Green Bay: 46 pass attempts, 32 rushing attempts (59.0 percent passes)

Final scoring drive:
Began in the 4th quarter at 11:32
Ended in the 4th quarter at 5:46
Score at beginning of drive: 27-0
Play sequence: Pass, run, pass, run, run, pass, run, run, pass. (4 passes, 5 runs).

Next drive with backup quarterback started with a pass play.

You see, this is just they way professionals play football.

Have something to say? Create a free account and step up to the Pulpit! (Please: No vulgarity. Thanks.)

by tommasse on Nov 12, 2007 4:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

and it has been pointed out...

the packers have no running game anyway...

by circusboy on Nov 12, 2007 11:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Did you watch the game?

I was really impressed by this kid Grant. He ran it right down the Vikes throat. How could you say the Pac had no running game. Are you just going by what the talking heads on ESPN say? Grant had a great game. Over one hundred yards and a TD. Get with it pal...!...?

by davidjohhn2 on Nov 13, 2007 12:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah well

That was one game, why don't you look at their previous 8.

by DaPats on Nov 13, 2007 1:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As it happens,

No. I don't own a tv, and have not for several years.

I was just reiterating the joke made in another thread...

oh well, need to remember to include the <sarcasm>, and <joke> tags... sigh...

by circusboy on Nov 14, 2007 7:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The very sensitive

...and the bitter complain about the score. It's a loser's weakness. The over-achiever, the dominant one can take it as well as dish it out and also be rational about it. Gibbs is of the latter.

by mrcbdrd on Nov 14, 2007 5:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs