Things that are “proven” don’t generally require analysis. They just require simple observation, i.e. empiricism.
In this case, analysis is about inferences drawn from evidence, not “certainties.” So, while it may be impossible to say with certainty, it’s not remotely impossible to say with credibility what the evidence suggests, or at least that for which there is no evidence to support. There aren’t “too many variables” to make reasonable inferences. There are merely some variables that make proof difficult or impossible. I choose to follow the evidence and you clearly are making a different choice.
Regarding your choice, I don’t accept your premise that all we can do is sit here and throw up our hands in hopeless futility whenever complexities exist that cloud the view and say, we can’t know anything! How can we draw an inference that Aaron Rodgers is a better QB than Case Keenum? There are too many variables! They don’t even share a uniform in common, let alone teammates! It is impossible! Of course, you’ve demonstrably failed at that argument because you have clearly seen fit to arrive at the conclusion that my analysis “fails”, which inescapably means you’ve determined a failure with some certainty without actual proof, right? RIGHT? You’ve obliviously exploded your own argument.
The data is rational and objective. It says with certainty that there is little to no evidence to support the theory that either Gurley or Austin or the combination of the two actually improved the offense in 2015 over 2014. The Rams scored fewer TD’s in 2015 than they did in 2014, they scored fewer total points, they gained fewer total yards and they gained fewer yards per play. In virtually every aggregate measure the offense was worse in 2015 than it was in 2014 despite Gurley’s and Austin’s efforts.
There is evidence they did help a component of the offense last season. They helped to improve output in the running game in both volume and average per carry over the previous season. Could this “improvement” in running the ball be attributable to a variable of improved offensive line play instead? A better scheme, perhaps? They can’t be ruled out as factors since we have no reliable way to measure, though I suspect you’d prefer to credit Austin and Gurley rather than other variables anyway. And in this case a deferral to your wishes works out since it is consistent with the evidence.
Where does it leave us? They ran the ball more frequently and more effectively with Gurley and Austin in 2015 and there were impacts to overall offensive production in the process. The evidence suggests the passing game was impacted negatively, which resulted in a net decline in total offensive output. I would argue the data suggests they should resist the temptation to double down in that direction merely because Austin scored more TD’s last year, but you appear to defend the decision based only on the rather meaningless isolated fact that Austin scored more TD’s last year. You might end up right, but it will be by luck rather than design.
As for the second point, absence of a serious injury to date doesn’t dismiss the existence of the risk. The risk isn’t realized until it is. That’s how it works. It could reasonably be argued that he’s managed to defy the odds thus far, which means a reckoning is becoming ever more likely if they don’t change course on the risky behavior. And, I hate to pull the ol’ evidence card on you again, but I charted his rushing yards and average per rush, throwing out the lowest and highest outliers. It showed a trend line that remained perfectly horizontal for his average rushing yards per game and it showed a decline for yards per attempt over the course of the season. Those combined trends indicates increased chances and diminishing results. It’s mostly nominal, so not strong evidence. But it is something to suggest defenses were or are adjusting, which is better than the wish and the prayer you’re relying on that they’re not. And what cost did defenses pay for adjusting you ask? Well, the trusty charts show no meaningful sacrifice. Trend line for points per game for the season was also negative as was yards per game and passing yards per game, Trend line for 1st downs per game was flat and rushing yards per game was the only slightly positive trend.
Quote
dzrams
Having an explosive weapon that scores 9 TDs, and one that defenses worry about and spend time scheming to stop, is by definition greatly helpful to an offense.
That’s a wonderful warm and fuzzy theory to hold onto while you simultaneously claim it’s all too complex to really say in any useful way. Unfortunately in Austin’s case there is no evidence that actually lends it validity, but there is a fair amount of evidence that suggests it’s little more than wishful thinking.
