Appalachian State's Satterfield likes his numbers
Brant Wilkerson-New Winston-Salem Journal

http://www.journalnow.com/sports/asu/fo ... fb293.html

I always cringe when the statistic about rushing attempts and the correlation with winning percentage is used. I think it is the wrong cause and the wrong effect. Teams typically run the ball when they have the lead to protect the ball and use up the clock.

From the same mold, losing teams touting passing statistics. Well duh, you are always behind, so you are chucking the ball all around the field to catch up.

I don't mean to downplay the importance of establishing the run. Just hate when a statistic like that is used to prove that running the ball more means you are more likely to win.

I think the correlation is meant to reflect a team's ability to run the ball effectively - ie picking up 4 yards a carry, making first downs on the ground when you need to, keeping defenses on their heels, etc - increases your likelihood of winning, not just the direct "rushing attempts no matter what they produce = winning". Defensive speed has caught up enough that the spread offense is becoming less and less effective. But spread offenses that can stretch the field and still effectively run tend to be very very good.

APPdiesel wrote:I think the correlation is meant to reflect a team's ability to run the ball effectively - ie picking up 4 yards a carry, making first downs on the ground when you need to, keeping defenses on their heels, etc - increases your likelihood of winning, not just the direct "rushing attempts no matter what they produce = winning". Defensive speed has caught up enough that the spread offense is becoming less and less effective. But spread offenses that can stretch the field and still effectively run tend to be very very good.

I agree, but the statistic used didn't filter for teams that had success running. It just said that teams with more than 40 attempts are winning at a .730 clip. I would argue that the winning teams are often running as a result of leading games, not that teams are winning as a result of running at a high volume.

I think you're right, Crutch, and made basically the same point in another thread. It's certainly true that, if you're able to run the ball effectively, you increase your chances of winning, and therefore running the ball more often.

The fallacy comes when commentators say something like, "Well, if running the ball 40 times works so well, why don't they always just do that?" If you run it 25 times for 40 yards and fall behind by 20, simply running the ball 15 more times isn't going to suddenly mean you'll win most of the time.

Safe to say App's quickest path to success last year, and likely this year, was/is to get Cox and co. rolling on the ground, then allow Lamb to benefit from that in the passing game. But I think our offense is built for balance, and we'll see that throughout the season.