Is it football season already? It seems like I just got over the epic disappointment of the Superbowl. (Yes, I'm a Pats fan) So, in honor of football season, I think it's worth highlighting one of the major trends to affect the sport over the last few decades: the ascent of the passing game. Since 1960, quarterbacks have managed to increase their average gain per pass attempt by nearly 30 percent, from 4.6 yards to 6.5 yards. (Running backs only get about 4 yards per attempt, a number that hasn't changed in thirty years.) Furthermore, even as quarterbacks have gotten more yards per pass, they have managed to throw fewer interceptions. In 1980, passes were picked off more than 6 percent of the time. By 1995, the rate of interceptions had been halved, which meant that passing the ball wasn't any statistically riskier than rushing.
Given these statistics, it shouldn't be surprising that NFL teams are passing more than ever before. Nevertheless, they still aren't passing enough. That, at least, is the conclusion of Ben Alamar, a professor of sports management at Menlo College. He argues that the NFL exhibits a "Passing Premium Puzzle". (This is the sports version of the Equity Premium Puzzle, which is the mystery of why investors hold so many low yield bonds when stocks perform so much better over the long-term.) Alamar notes that, despite the significant increase in the expected utility of the passing game, coaches still run the ball about 46 percent of the time. While this represents a decrease from the 1960's - the average NFL team use to run the ball more than 58 percent of the time - a perfectly rational coach would almost always choose to pass, since passing represents a higher rate of return. So why do coaches still run the ball? Alamar admits that a successful running game contributes to the success of the passing game, since you want the defensive backs to have to worry about the possibility of a run. But he isn't convinced that coaches need to run the ball quite so often. "For all of their planning and late nights," Alamar writes, "NFL coaches do not act in a fully rational manner." Just like investors choosing bonds over stocks - stocks have a much higher rate of return over the long run - coaches are swayed by the illusory perception of risk, or what's often known as risk aversion. Although passing the ball isn't statistically riskier than running the ball, it feels riskier, as the ball is lofted into the air and is up for grabs. The end result is that teams gain fewer yards than they might otherwise, simply because the brain isn't good at accurately calculating risks versus rewards.
Brain & Behavior
Comments (28)
Might want to edit the 2nd and 3d sentences in the 2nd paragraph...
The behavioral paradigm here is Choice & Matching; the coaches, as you describe them, are exhibiting undermatching--responding on the richer schedule (passing) proportionally less than the reinforcement rate would predict.
Undermatching typically happens when there is little cost for switching from one schedule to the other. As you note, the running game averages 4 yards per carry; as Woody Hayes famously observed, "four yards and a cloud of dust" on each play guarantees a string of first downs, and eventual scoring. Yes, the 6.5 yards per passing play is more efficient, but as running will also work, there is no reason not to engage in undermatching.
In addition, there is no cost in time to switch between a running lineup and a passing lineup; if it required a time-out to get different players on the field, switching would be more costly and matching or even overmatching would likely take place. Quite arguably, it is not that "the brain isn't good at accurately calculating", but simply that the cost of switching is not significant, and coaches' behavior responds to the contingencies at hand.
Posted by: Anon | September 4, 2008 12:22 PM