TMQ Tidbit

Here is a tidbit from Gregg Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback column:

Television announcers tend to talk exclusively about sacks, but offensive holding penalties are every bit as good.

This is a common maneuver by Easterbrook in his TMQ column. He makes a claim, as if it is a great insight, then completely fails to give it a basis, or he does so in an erroroneous manner. Often times it is something small like the claim above, but even then, the aggregate affect can be very annoying. This is especially true since Easterbrook's TMQ column has an I'm-the-smartest-guy-in-the-room feel to it. That's a fine feeling to convey if you are the smartest guy in the room, but the more I read Easterbrook's column the more I'm finding that he probably isn't.

With that said, how exactly is an offensive holding penalty "every bit as good" as a sack? The average sack might result in a smaller loss than the average offensive holding penalty, but a sack has the obvious advantage that the offense loses the down. In fact, my preliminary research (this website) indicates that the average sack (about a 5 yard loss, loss of down) is more valuable for the defense than the average offensive holding penalty (about a 10 yard loss, replay the down) . For instance, on 3rd and 15 the chances of converting a first down is around 20%, on 2nd and 20 its around 30%. So, on 2nd and 10, the average sack is 10% better than the average offensive holding penalty in terms of first down conversion likelihood.

At best Easterbrook's claim is completely unfounded, at worst it's simply not true (which is the likely case, in my estimation).

***********************
Addendum: One other thing. "Television announcers tend to talk exclusively about sacks..." Huh? Have you ever witnessed an offensive holding penalty that the TV announcers didn't talk about? In the Super Bowl Mike Gandy had several big offensive holding penalties that thwarted Arizona drives. I know this not because I chart holding penalties throughout the game (or because I read Easterbrook's column a few days later), but because the announcers talked about it.