Comments on Advanced NFL Stats: Why There Is So Much Holding

When protecting a running QB, the rushers nearest ...

2009-07-09T13:26:34.232-04:00

When protecting a running QB, the rushers nearest to the passer are harder to block, but the rushers he is rolling away from are easier to block. By eliminating half the rushers you should at least eliminate the holding penalties on them. I'd say the conventional wisdom among most coaches is that putting the QB on the move makes him easier to protect. This is a testable hypothesis, but as far as testing whether a mobile QB in general is easier to protect, we'd first have to quantify the meaning of "mobile."

Conversely, I'd imagine mobile QBs (especially...

2009-07-08T18:49:38.252-04:00

Conversely, I'd imagine mobile QBs (especially, out-of-the-pocket guys) result in more holds. Defenders moving laterally rather than running down-hill into the pocket are probably tougher to legally block.

Do mobile QB's, or those that are adept at get...

2009-07-02T12:26:03.279-04:00

Do mobile QB's, or those that are adept at getting rid of the ball (e.g. Manning), result in OL's instinctively knowing that the probability of sack is lower and therefore they hold less?

Yes, it factors in fumble risk, but only in as far...

2009-06-25T20:02:18.149-04:00

Yes, it factors in fumble risk, but only in as far as it affects the probability of gaining a first down. The consequence of a lost fumble is only partially considered here.

Yeah -- that's what your article says too. A s...

2009-06-25T14:34:13.976-04:00

Yeah -- that's what your article says too. A sack is equivalent to a penalty that incurs 5yrds and a loss of down; whereas a hold is 10 yards. The article (and graph) indicate that the the sack reduces the 1st down prob by 30% -- which looks to be similar to a 10 yard difference along the same down line. It also talks about an extra expected point loss because of the enhanced risk of fumble. (Was the fumble risk included in this study?) All said, its very surprising that a sack is 10% better than a hold

Sacks cause a about a 5-yd loss on average, and th...

2009-06-24T23:12:03.078-04:00

Sacks cause a about a 5-yd loss on average, and that holds across the spectrum of downs and to go distances, including 2nd and 5 (-5.18 yds). Hope that helps clarify things. I double checked the numbers to be sure.

I'm in the same boat as Will -- even after rea...

2009-06-24T12:58:02.956-04:00

I'm in the same boat as Will -- even after reading Anon's sack article link. Dropping 10 yards on the 2nd down line in the 1st down probability graph looks to be about a 30% drop -- same as the prose talks about for a sack. But, the sack also has the increased fumble rate to contend that should make it less likely to get a first down.

Will-This sack article should answer your question.

I am amazed that a 2nd and 5 play that results in ...

2009-06-24T09:01:28.464-04:00

I am amazed that a 2nd and 5 play that results in a sack, yielding, say, 3rd and 12, is more likely to lead to a first down than a 2nd and 5 play that results in a hold, yielding 2nd and 15. I guess there must be significant fraction of sacks where the QB manages to get back to near the line of scrimmage before going down. Can you tell us the average yardage-to-go after a sack on 2nd and 5?