Coach55 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Bored at work and started thinking about the old belief that if you run the ball, you control the clock, thus control the game. This is not as true as one might think. Time of Possession grades how long you held the ball while the clock is running. However, if you compare the following scenarios in which the same amount of yards are achieved, which would you rather have Scenario 1 - Run, run, pass for first down, run, run, run, punt - TOP: 4:25 Scenario 2 - Incomplete pass, Incomplete Pass, Pass for first down, 3 incomplete passes, punt. TOP: 1:15 One would argue that Scenario 1 is better as you controlled the clock for over 3 minutes longer. However in actuality, you would be indifferent in these 2 scenarios as the actual time (not game time) would both theoretically burn ~4:25. In the latter scenario, the clock stops between each pass, thus real time still runs. Barring an unusual stoppage, you have 40 seconds between each play to call a play, regardless if the game clock is moving. End result - the time of possession statistic is not a valid judge on whether a team should win. Offensive plays run, I would think, would be much more outcome determinative.
nucci Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Bored at work and started thinking about the old belief that if you run the ball, you control the clock, thus control the game. This is not as true as one might think. Time of Possession grades how long you held the ball while the clock is running. However, if you compare the following scenarios in which the same amount of yards are achieved, which would you rather have Scenario 1 - Run, run, pass for first down, run, run, run, punt - TOP: 4:25 Scenario 2 - Incomplete pass, Incomplete Pass, Pass for first down, 3 incomplete passes, punt. TOP: 1:15 One would argue that Scenario 1 is better as you controlled the clock for over 3 minutes longer. However in actuality, you would be indifferent in these 2 scenarios as the actual time (not game time) would both theoretically burn ~4:25. In the latter scenario, the clock stops between each pass, thus real time still runs. Barring an unusual stoppage, you have 40 seconds between each play to call a play, regardless if the game clock is moving. End result - the time of possession statistic is not a valid judge on whether a team should win. Offensive plays run, I would think, would be much more outcome determinative. It's not TOP that's important. It's what you do with the ball when you have it.
Coach55 Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 It's not TOP that's important. It's what you do with the ball when you have it. Not going to argue that, but people have this misnomer that TOP is everything and running the ball is so important, which is clearly not the case.
ans4e64 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Bored at work and started thinking about the old belief that if you run the ball, you control the clock, thus control the game. This is not as true as one might think. Time of Possession grades how long you held the ball while the clock is running. However, if you compare the following scenarios in which the same amount of yards are achieved, which would you rather have Scenario 1 - Run, run, pass for first down, run, run, run, punt - TOP: 4:25 Scenario 2 - Incomplete pass, Incomplete Pass, Pass for first down, 3 incomplete passes, punt. TOP: 1:15 One would argue that Scenario 1 is better as you controlled the clock for over 3 minutes longer. However in actuality, you would be indifferent in these 2 scenarios as the actual time (not game time) would both theoretically burn ~4:25. In the latter scenario, the clock stops between each pass, thus real time still runs. Barring an unusual stoppage, you have 40 seconds between each play to call a play, regardless if the game clock is moving. End result - the time of possession statistic is not a valid judge on whether a team should win. Offensive plays run, I would think, would be much more outcome determinative. Who the hell cares about real time? It is game clock time that matters. And scenario 1 burns off more.
Chef Jim Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Not going to argue that, but people have this misnomer that TOP is everything and running the ball is so important, which is clearly not the case. Misnomer?
JinWPB Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Johnny had three apples. He gave Billy an orange and a banana, how many grapefruit does Jack have?
SDS Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 That's a novel approach, but I think it is wrong. You can sum it by by saying - every minute of game clock you have the ball - is one minute less of game clock they have the ball. There really is no scenario where that isn't the better outcome.
Hazed and Amuzed Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 You are forgetting about the defenses rest factor as well as keeping the other offense off of the field and possibly disrupting their timing and continuity.
Coach55 Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Who the hell cares about real time? It is game clock time that matters. And scenario 1 burns off more. This is exactly the thought process. There are various scenarios to burn the game clock (i.e. if you have the lead late or a big lead early in the 2nd half). People complain that the "no-huddle" will not allow for the defense to rest, but statistical TOP as it is tracked is meaningless compared to real time.
Coach55 Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 You are forgetting about the defenses rest factor as well as keeping the other offense off of the field and possibly disrupting their timing and continuity. In both scenarios the defense is off the field for the same amount of time.
buffaloaggie Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I think it was Donte Whitner that was being interviewed during the game Saturday, and he was talking about how the Bills would control time of possession with the no huddle. Has he ever watched SBXXV (sorry to bring it up) when the Giants had the ball more than 40 minutes? TOP could be a misnomer in the scenarios that you describe only in the case of giving the defense a chance to rest. The defense would get the same amount of rest in both cases you talk about. TOP measures a team controlling the game clock and the ball, keeping it from the other team so they can't score. The Bills of the 90's had the good problem of scoring too quickly and not giving the defense a chance to rest. Those Bills could run the same number of plays in 25 minutes of clock time that the other team could run in 35 minutes. It all comes down to how effecient you are when you have the ball. If you score on a long play each time you have the ball, number of plays and TOP would not matter, because your offense was efficient with the ball. Basically, what I'm saying is TOP and number of plays can show a team dominated a game possession-wise, but it also might not mean squat if the other team was incredibly efficient.
Hazed and Amuzed Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 You are also forgetting about the wear and tear on the other teams front 7 that running may cause.
ans4e64 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 In both scenarios the defense is off the field for the same amount of time. No they are not. You accounted for the snap to take all 40 seconds between every single play, which the no huddle obviously does not. You snap it quick, you don't take 40 seconds.
Coach55 Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 That's a novel approach, but I think it is wrong. You can sum it by by saying - every minute of game clock you have the ball - is one minute less of game clock they have the ball. There really is no scenario where that isn't the better outcome. Disagree - If you have a better offense than your opponent, you ideally would want more possessions as it would allow you more opportunities to score. Example - the Colts are playing the Broncos. The Colts are favored by 10. The Colts, ideally would want to get as many possessions as possible as it would give them more opportunities to score. Thus by passing more, they can achieve this. Conversely, the Broncos would want to do what they could to keep the Colts off the field. By running they are able to keep the clock burning, thus even if their drives go no where, the Colts would have less possessions. Obviously, this strategy changes based on the score.
stuckincincy Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I think it was Donte Whitner that was being interviewed during the game Saturday, and he was talking about how the Bills would control time of possession with the no huddle. Has he ever watched SBXXV (sorry to bring it up) when the Giants had the ball more than 40 minutes? TOP could be a misnomer in the scenarios that you describe only in the case of giving the defense a chance to rest. The defense would get the same amount of rest in both cases you talk about. TOP measures a team controlling the game clock and the ball, keeping it from the other team so they can't score. The Bills of the 90's had the good problem of scoring too quickly and not giving the defense a chance to rest. Those Bills could run the same number of plays in 25 minutes of clock time that the other team could run in 35 minutes. It all comes down to how effecient you are when you have the ball. If you score on a long play each time you have the ball, number of plays and TOP would not matter, because your offense was efficient with the ball. Basically, what I'm saying is TOP and number of plays can show a team dominated a game possession-wise, but it also might not mean squat if the other team was incredibly efficient. Good post.
silvermike Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I think TOP tends to be an indicator of successful play rather than a goal unto itself. A team that goes 1/3 for 10 yards passing is probably worse than the team that runs three times for ten yards, even if the immediate result is the same. More first downs equal more plays, and more plays equal more TOP. And of course, ahead in the 4th, it helps if you're the kind of team who knows how to eat the clock.
Coach55 Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 No they are not. You accounted for the snap to take all 40 seconds between every single play, which the no huddle obviously does not. You snap it quick, you don't take 40 seconds. I agree with that statement if you "hurry up". But if you just run a passing offense (ala the Cheatriots*) or run a no-huddle (without the hurry-up factor) you are indifferent.
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Nice original thought but I have to disagree. The whole reason you want to control TOP is so that you fatigue the other team's defense while yours rests - and I'm not just talking about cardio-respiratory endurance either. The violent nature of the game exacts a toll on the body over the course of the game, and by running the ball consistently, you ensure that the other team is getting beat on consistently. Passing is much more about skill and finesse, and doesn't not exact nearly the same cost in terms of physical punishment on defenders' bodies. This is why, especially in the case of power runners, running games tend to open up in the second halves of games, and also why TOP is highly valuable.
SDS Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Disagree - If you have a better offense than your opponent, you ideally would want more possessions as it would allow you more opportunities to score. Example - the Colts are playing the Broncos. The Colts are favored by 10. The Colts, ideally would want to get as many possessions as possible as it would give them more opportunities to score. Thus by passing more, they can achieve this. Conversely, the Broncos would want to do what they could to keep the Colts off the field. By running they are able to keep the clock burning, thus even if their drives go no where, the Colts would have less possessions. Obviously, this strategy changes based on the score. We aren't arguing number of possessions. You brought up TOP. Great offense, bad offense... it doesn't matter. Having the ball more than your opponent is never a bad thing.
tennesseeboy Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 look at superbowl SBXXV and try to make the argument. Parcell's game plan was ALL about TOP. The Bills scored, if I remember 19 points in the 19 minutes the offense was on the field. Keeping them off the field was the be all and end all of the game. For you researchers there must be some study that would show how teams do when they maintain favorable TOP?
Recommended Posts