The Dude Abides...The Stats That Don't Lie, Week 10
I can no longer sit back and allow a stats infiltration, a stats indoctrination, a stats subversion, and the international stats conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. --General Jack D. Ripper
______________________________________________________________________
Last week another disaster movie, 2012, opened across the USA. This coincided with Week 10 of the NFL season. We were reminded of three important things:
- Do not ignore ancient warnings (apparently, the world ends)
- Don't give Peyton Manning a short field (apparently, the game ends)
- Jay Cutler's arm is a Mayan calendar (apparently, the Bears end)
The Denver Broncos have thus far avoided complete catastrophe, sitting at 6-3. But another loss, and you should probably head to the basement with all of your canned goods, bottled water, and flashlight batteries.
Welcome to the Week 10 version of the Stats That Don't Lie. These are the stats that infect the entire population--at least until the 3rd act. They are the statistical little green men locked in your pantry. In short, these are stats to take to the bomb shelter (with the little lady, of course). As always they include Turnovers, Field Position, Time of Possession, and 3rd-down efficiency.
The Broncos continue their downward spiral from last week's ranking in the four categories. But rather than compare this week's rankings to last week's as we normally do, let's instead look at a picture that tells the real story of the 2009 Broncos' season. The following chart is the Broncos' turnover margin from each game of 2009. You may want to hide the women and children before you look at the last three (Note: I "normalized" the New England game and removed Orton's hail mary, so the turnover battle was effectively zero).
If you knew nothing about football or had been dropped here from outer space (your average Raiders fan) and you saw this graph, it wouldn't take you long to figure out which games the Broncos had won and which games they had lost. In fact, if you had no knowledge of Jay Cutler or Kyle Orton or Mitch Berger or Brett Kern, you would probably look at this chart and say, "5-3, no doubt, with the New England game going either way."
This makes both intuitive sense and statistical sense. If you've read some of my previous work on turnover margin, you'll probably remember that during the last roughly 360 games, I found the following winning percentages associated with each specific turnover ratio:
- -2 turnover margin:21.95%
- -1 turnover margin:28.36%
- Even Turnover margin:50% (of course)
- +1 turnover margin:71.64%
- +2 turnover margin:78.05%
Simply put, win the turnover battle and you will win on the scoreboard. And not just for the obvious reasons of short circuiting your drive, taking away potential points off the board, and giving your opponent the chance to score. If you've ever played any sport (although it's particularly pronounced in football), you have probably experienced what happens when you feel momentum and emotion shift from one team to another. It's contagious. It's powerful. The very outcome of a game is often determined by it. Well, a turnover is like a momentum shift on HGH. If you doubt this, simply replay the tape of Champ Baily intercepting Tom Brady in the 2005 Playoffs. That was the BALCO of turnovers.
On Sunday the Broncos didn't win the turnover margin against the Redskins, and they are 6-3 because of it. Fake field goals and injured ankles got the headlines. But turnover margin was the dirty little secret.
Here are how all 32 teams rank this week in each of the four categories. Remember, I calculate this on an average/per game basis.
Denver is now 8th in giveaways, 25th in Field Position, 17th in Time of Possession, and 19th in 3rd-down efficiency. If one wants to begin a descent into mediocrity, these kinds of rankings will certainly suffice.
The third downs and time of possession will come along, I believe, but field position remains a primary concern. Mitch Berger continues to be the focus of a lot of friendly fire; but again, I ask, how can Denver kick start its Kick Return and Punt Return game? The Broncos aren't going to get 2 return TDs again against San Diego, nor is San Diego going to kick the ball out of bounds twice.
I make my weekly plea for Alphonso Smith getting some action as a return man. I like the move for several reasons. First, Ty Law is now getting most of Denver's Nickel action. Second, Smith is a playmaker. He needs to be on the field. Don't believe his 40 time. He has a burst. Third, it can't get much worse.
A few other teams stand out from these rankings. First, notice New England. Sure, they lost a crazy game to Indianapolis, but despite their 6-3 record, they are battle tested, playoff ready, and they rank in the top 7 in all four categories. Another team is New Orleans. For an undefeated team, they sure do turn the ball over a lot, despite their turnover margin being +6. Even though they are in the top ten in Field Position, Time of Possession, and 3rd-down efficiency, they might run into a game in the playoffs, in which they are not going to be explosive enough to overcome their mistakes, and the other team is going to hold onto the ball.
There are two other teams of curiosity. The first is Green Bay, who ranks 1st in giveaways/game, and is in the top 12 in each of the other categories. As a stats guy, I have to believe what I am seeing with these numbers. I think they surprise people in the 2nd half, have a chance to beat both Baltimore and Pittsburgh, and get to the playoffs. The second team is the Cleveland Browns, who are last in giveaways, 30th in Time of Possession, and 31st in 3rd-down efficiency. Their only bright spot? They are ninth in Field Position. How is this? Joshua Cribbs (they call me Mr. Cribbs).
Why would I focus on the Cleveland Browns? For one, I enjoy making fun of the Cleveland Browns. Another reason is for perspective. Denver would have to sink pretty low to get into Browns territory. Third, if I can reference Sidney Poitier, you think I'm not going to do it?
Week 10 Games
Before getting into the individual game stats, I want to bring your attention to a few individual games in interest.
The first, of course, is the Denver/Washington game. I've already pointed out Denver's horrid performance with respect to turnovers, but Washington also beat them in average starting field position. This happened even in the face of the two kickoffs out of bounds by Washington. Denver's average starting field position was the 27.91-yard line. Washington's was the 31.10. Denver also lost the time of possession- and 3rd-down efficiency battles. Denver's quick-strike offense in the first half helped contribute to this, along with the injury to Orton, forcing Chris Simms into action, and into inaction on 3rd down.
Another game of interest was the Kansas City/Oakland game, for the chief reason that this is the first game of the entire season in which one team lost all four categories (non-ties), yet still won the game. Congrats, Oakland. Even when you win, you lose. Just how was this possible?
Rather than say karma, I went back and watched the game again in search of some magic bullet that would tell me how this happened. But it was just putrid Oakland football that caused their demise. A slew of penalties, dropped passes, and a red-zone interception told the tale. And if you look at the stat line, it's not as if Oakland dominated all four categories. So I'm filing this one away as an renegade game. Al Davis would be so proud.
Of course, I can't stop myself from looking at the Chicago/San Francisco game. Jay Cutler, you are the Frankenstein of QBs. You have a grotesquely strong arm, but you're going to kill your team with its use. 5 interceptions and a turnover margin of -4. That's not quarterbacking. That's a recipe for a Mayan disaster movie.
And finally, we would not be complete if we didn't look at Brady vs. Manning. While Bill Belichick's 4th-quarter decision will be the focus of the analysis for most of the week, the stats tell the story. Despite the win by Indianapolis, New England was the better team, and shouldn't be worried about the rematch, which is certain to happen.
Week 10 Summaries:
2-Turnover Rule (Explained Here)
-
7 teams had 0 turnovers. 7 won (100%); For the season, 48/58 (83%)
-
7 teams had 1 turnover. 3 won (43%); For the season, 44/76 (58%)
-
12 teams had 2 turnovers. 4 won (33%); For the season, 40/89 (45%)
-
3 teams had 3 turnovers. 1 won (33%); For the season, 8/39 (21%)
-
0 team had 4 turnovers. None won (0%); For the season, 4/19 (21%)
-
1 teams had 5+ turnovers. None won (0%); For the season, 0/7 (0%)
Week 10 Big Picture:
-
The team that won the turnover battle won 13 of 15 games played (87%).
-
In the previous category, remove the ties (3 games) and this changes to 73%
-
The team that won the time of possession battle won 10 of the 15 games played (67%).
-
The team that had better third-down efficiency won 8 of the 15 games played (53%).
-
The team that had better average starting field position won 12 of the 15 games played (80%).
-
There were 6 games this week in which a team won all four categories. In 4 of the 6, the same team won on the scoreboard (67%). For the season, this stat is 48 out of 51 games. In only 1 game, however, has a team won outright in all four categories (no ties in turnovers) and lost.
-
The winning teams this week averaged .93 turnovers, 30:39 in time of possession, 39.64% on 3rd downs, and their average starting field position was the 31.50 yard line.
Top 5 in Week 10:
-
Top 5 in giveaways: 7 Teams tied with 0
-
Top 5 in time of possession: 1.GB 2.WAS 3.NE 4.STL 5. ATL
-
Top 5 in 3rd downs: 1.TEN 2.NO 3.JAX, NYJ, CAR are tied
-
Top 5 in avg. starting field position: 1.CIN 2.NO 3.MIN 4.SF 5.BAL
Running Totals, Season (through 10 weeks):
-
144 games have been played this season
-
83.33% were won by the team with less turnovers (counting ties as wins)
-
66.67% with a better time of possession
-
65.97% by the team who won on 3rd down
-
72.92% by the team that won the field position battle.
10-week Averages for Benchmarking This Week's Games:
10-week running average/game, turnovers (all teams): 1.69
10-week running average/game, time of possession (all teams): 30:10 (thanks to numerous OT games)
10-week running average/game, 3rd down efficiency (all teams): 37.65%
10-week running average, starting field position (all teams) 29.89 yard line
Here are the individual game stats from Week 10 (including obligatory comments):
The Look Ahead
Looking ahead to San Diego, here is how the two teams stack up in the four statistical categories (keeping in mind these are averages/game):
Team Turnovers/Game Time of Possession Field Position 3rd-Down Efficiency
Denver 1.22 29:41 27.72 37.52%
San Diego 1.13 27:57 30.38 40.43%
The turnover battle is a wash. Denver has been chewing up more clock, but that's not saying much. And San Diego has the edge in both field position and 3rd-down efficiency.
While these stats point to doom and gloom for the Broncos, one has to also consider home-field advantage. In the NFL, the home team wins about 55%-60% of the time. Is this enough to overcome Orton's injury, the return game of Darren Sproles, the whining of Phil Rivers, and the momentum that is clearly in the favor of the Chargers?
If so, the apocalypse will be with the Chargers. Denver will have beaten them twice, and tie-breakers won't save them this year.
Go Broncos!!!
Last Stat: 100% (percentage chance that Phil Rivers wishes he could play Jay Cutler twice a year)
12 recs |
58 comments
|
Comments
Dude, these stats don't lie.
That turnover differential stat is stout. 6-0 when we are + or = in turnovers and 0-3 when we are – in turnovers. Sounds to me like we need to hold on to the ball and get more picks and fumbles this week against the Chargers. That should do the trick.
Thanks again, dude.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
KB, Nothing warms the heart like a Champ Bailey pick 6!
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
Indeed. I'd love to see a "BDawk Smack and Scoop", as well.
The fumble recovery where he brought both feet back in bounds was a thing of genius.
Basically, the more we can get the ball away from Rivers, the more enjoyment I will get out of this game. Of course, I’m not going to discriminate, though. I’d be just as happy if anyone else wanted to dislodge the ball from a Charger player. If Hill, Goodman, Davis, DJ, Phonz, Law, Doom, or anybody else wants to get in on the action with BDawk and Champ, feel free.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
by kentuckybronco on Nov 18, 2009 10:23 AM MST up reply actions
How about this, KB:
They all meet at a location known as Phil Rivers, right at the same time, full speed.
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
I guess that will work. muahah ha ha ha ha........
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
by kentuckybronco on Nov 18, 2009 1:32 PM MST up reply actions
turnovers versus loose balls
As they say at footballoutsiders, holding onto the ball is a skill, but the frequency of covering a ball once it is loose on the field is largely a matter of random luck. Would it be possible to quantify fumbles and loose-balls versus actual turnovers? If so, the stat might have more predictive ability.
As it is, to say that the Broncos had a positive turnover ratio the first 8 weeks tells us little about whether they will have a positive turnover ratio the last 8 weeks. Thanks for the good writing, as always.
thanks OB, agreed. And yes, I can quantify this. Let me give it a run.
As I painfully learned with securities, 10 years of historical dividends doesn’t mean one is getting one next quarter.
Interceptions are a different story. And given that in an NFL season, about 60% of your turnovers are INTs, they are more relevant.
I think I’m gonna have to add some footnotes to these weekly columns:
1) Correlation is not causation
2) Field Position is Fluid
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
Heard that
Boy, I learned that securities lesson (painfully), too!
by oorange blood on Nov 18, 2009 10:33 AM MST up reply actions
Cool stuff as usual Dude
Complete with raider Bashing references. Lol
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
Kaptain, Forgot to tell you...I dig the new threads!!!
You look like you are ready to walk into the Black Hole!
Now that…I would pay good money to see that.
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
Great stuff, as always!
First of all, speaking of momentum changes, do you remember the Champ Pick 6 off Drew Brees against SD back in 2005? That pick turned that whole season around, IMO.
As always, I’m another voice in the choir calling for Smith as the return man. You make all of the arguments, so I won’t get into it here. I will say that I like Eddie better as a receiver with fresh legs to start a drive. I don’t like the idea of having him line up at WR after running 50 yards laterally (zig-zagging back and forth across the field) and then getting blown up by the coverage team.
We need some picks/fumble recoveries if for no better reason than to get that defense off the field. They’re having trouble enough doing it on 3rd down.
- Jason
I gather speed by you f***ing with me - EV
Jubei, now that is one I forgot, but it is equally as compelling...
Good additional point about Eddie. Another reason why Tim Brown was so amazing over his career. It’s too bad the Undead Raiders matched Shanny’s offer on Brown the year we went after him as a free agent.
Your last point is interesting, and I should have addressed this better. Perhaps in the future. The relationship between your own 3rd-down efficiency and defensive statistics.
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
Good stuff man!
Verbose in style, dispersion of thought, procrastination in life.
The guy formerly known as ZAPPA
Zappa, the little green men really are sitting above your house as we speak;-)
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
Dude
I’m building my Ark now. (rec’d)
If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. - Thomas Jefferson
yeah, trog..the kicker will be when Davis cedes control of the Raiders...then you know you better start praying..
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
Buckhalter fumble
When he fumbled, I yelled “Dude! No! The stats don’t lie!” The fiance looks at me weird and I say it is a MHR thing. He was fighting for extra yards but he needs to hold onto the ball. I feel our team is trying to do too much recently. It’s time to get back to “Do your job”.
Leave it to the Raiders to make the stats lie. Are you shaking your fist in the air at them or just laughing like me at them? Gotta like the Raiders to cheer us up. :)
Rec’d of course.
LOL!!!!!! I had a similar thought after Buck's fumble.
I didn’t yell it. I just dejectedly said, “The dude is probably punching his computer screen hoping it will make the stats lie.”
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
by kentuckybronco on Nov 18, 2009 10:31 AM MST up reply actions
Beer, I was feeling the same way. I am constantly trying to calculate field position and turnover margin real time.
It’s not that you can’t win with a -1 or a -2, but you can see the numbers start to weigh on your chest like Albert Hayensworth just sat on you.
Of course, all turnovers are not created equal….I hope to get to this in a future article the Buck fumble was killer. We would have had points on that drive, no doubt.
I am laughing at them. If Stats are Gonna Lie, I want them to also laugh at Al Davis at the same time.
Let’s hope they stick with JaMarcus again when we play them. Cable is finally getting some balls and benching Russell in the 2nd halves of games. I am sure Davis will break his jaw for it.
And, she must be a good woman that you have if she is watching Bronco football!!!!
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
I was thinking along the same lines
Sometimes the Turnovers Fib a little. Like when it’s a INT on 3rd down and the QB threw it 45 yards in the air down to the 15 yard line. Good punt dude!
The NE decision to go for it on 4th down at the 29 was a bit like a TO. Of course, if they make the 1st down, game over.
Or the Orton to Moss Hail Mary, which you have every right to ignore.
Cutler’s red zone INTs, man, those kill! If Broncos still had Cutler, I’m thinking 6-3 isn’t happening, maybe 3-6, 4-5 at best.
And yes, my wife is there watching the Broncos with me, and then not being happy that I “made” her a Broncos fan when they play like they did vs. WAS. But, she usually goes and cleans bathrooms to avoid the stress of watching more….
If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. - Thomas Jefferson
For sure, Trog. Turnovers can lie, depending on the context of the turnover. Absolutely true.
On the point about NE, it sure have the same time of momentum shift.
I wonder if McD could have changed Cutler’s tendencies in this offense. I’m thinking that he certainly could have.
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
She owed me.
I watched a chick flick the night before so she owed me. Give a little, take a little. She is asking more questions lately and cheering more. So there is still hope of making her a Broncos fan.
by Beer30Bronco on Nov 18, 2009 10:55 AM MST up reply actions
As long as she doesn't cheer the Silver and Black, you should be good.
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
When Buck fumbled the ball there was a shiver went up my spine.
Field position battle in that game gave them a great start when we went for it on 4th down on our own side of the field. TO are the tell- tell signs though and thanks for the great Stats series TJ.
Broncos
Should have had 1 more TO from Campbell, but you can’t win them all.
If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. - Thomas Jefferson
So, the stats don't lie unless your dealing with...
…the dreadful Raiders or a hot Peyton Manning. And this shall be the only time those two shall ever be mentioned alike in the same sentence again.
"Take what you can. Give nothing back!"
by Colorado_Kitten on Nov 18, 2009 11:19 AM MST reply actions
+1
nice
"A man can fail, but he is not a failure until he blames someone else." J. Paul Getty
by SteveAssassin on Nov 18, 2009 3:16 PM MST up reply actions
CK, Tell the truth
Did you really think Manning would be this good? I sure did not. I did not think his arm was what his should be. Boy was I wrong.
The Raiders. Always weak armed.
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
Great as always TJ!
I am going to keep harping on field position and third down efficiency as our glaring vulnerabilities. I’d love to see Alphonso back there receiving; Eddie Royal still doesn’t make decisive moves up the field. Our punting game seems a mess, but kickoffs definitely seemed deeper by Prater against the ’Skins.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein
"Gentlemen, please! There's no fighting in here! This is the War Room!"
I am digging the Kubrick streak you’ve been on lately, Dude. Can’t wait to see what you do with The Shining (heeeeeeeeeere’s Joshy!) and Lolita (hm, this one’s a little harder … lol). I do suspect B-Dawk often channels Gunnery Sergeant Hartman from Full Metal Jacket (there’s only two things I know of that come from Oakland…).
But I’ll tell you this, if we lose to SD this week, I’ll have my eyes wide shut until the pain stops.
Conversation nonstarters: hoping McDaniels fails, comparing Bears to Broncos, Cutler to Orton, apples to oranges, and casual drinkers to Raiders fans.
The Lolita jokes will all have to come from Quilty’s lines. James Mason sounds awesome reading a recipe for oatmeal, but the effect just doesn’t translate to text.
My friends, lolita coming up, next week. Mark it!
Now I will have to go and youtube that movie again.
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
MT
You must be steeped in film history, man.
I had a few quotes from FMJ in some previous weeks, but with all of the language, I can’ t get them to work!
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
Alphonso
I have yet to see his burst. My observation when he returned the ball was a distinct lack of burst. I think they’ll need to draft another returner. Eddie is okay at punt return, but he’s poor at kickoff returns.
FTW, Who do you like back there for the near term? Eddie?
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
You have got it backwards
The team that won the time of possession battle won 10 of the 15 games played
I’ve tried before to demonstrate the fallacies in interpreting statistical nonsense but since ignorance persists, I shall illustrate in irrefutable terms to all but those blatantly ignoring the obvious, the flaws in thinking extending Time of Possession reflects a higher likelihood of winning:
Long TOP results from extended drives. Sometimes these end in scores and sometimes they donāt. There is nothing that can be learned about the frequency of scoring by looking at the statistics regarding prolonged drives. To the contrary, it is SHORT time of possession that is statistically reflected in outcomes but it is of no value in analyzing the impact of TOP.
Short TOP is a result of short drives. Short drives result from one of two possibilities: Sometimes a possession ends because of a very quick score (a TD on the first play, say) and sometimes they end because you canāt move the ball (3 and out, for example). Now pay attention. Here comes the obvious part: Being unable to move the ball happens much more often than a very quick score. Consequently, a short time of possession statistically indicates a losing effort. "Winning" the TOP is merely the inverse of the other teamās losing effort and is in no way an indicator of any value inherent in prolonging the time it takes to score.
Thanks, Warmick. This is good input and deserves a thorough response
You are saying what the FO say every prospectus, that the TOP is reflective of a team establishing the pass in the first half, and running out the clock in the 2nd half, so that teams that end up winning the TOP and winning the game are actually killing the clock in the 2nd half.
So when I keep track of this stat, it’s a reflection of this, not that I am saying that X team “established” the run, ran down the field, and scored a bunch of times, and buy keeping the clock they won.
In fact, the recent Miami-Indy gave a few weeks ago is a perfect analogy to what you described, almost to a “T.” Or we could do a thought experiment that would even be better. If there was such a team that scored a touchdown on every single 2nd down, let’ s say, their TOP (and 3rd-down efficiency) would always be smaller than their opponent, but they would win every time. In this case, passing yards/play would be a good measure. And in fact, there is a very high correlation coefficient between passing yard/play and winning
And yet, Time of Possession is really an outcome statistic. I think you used the word “incidental” last time you posted on this subject. I mean, and I think you mean by this, that’s it’s a reflection of being good as something else. One isn’t good at time of possession, any more than they are good at 3rd-down efficiency. Running and Passing and stopping your opponent all go into this outcome stat. I suppose I could keep track of 4 or 5 other rate stats to replace this stat if I was concerned with correlating individual actions within the game that “result” in winning time of possession.
What I am really trying to do with these weekly pieces is to simply bring stats to casual MHR readers, so I use these outcome markers, which do have a good correlation coefficient with season wins:
TOP: .56
3rd-down efficiency: .51
Field position: .60
And then at the individual game level, not with season wins, keeping track of turnover margin and individual wins.
But your input has given me an idea. Perhaps I can introduce more of these rate stats at the individual drive level in the future. I appreciate this input.
Warmick, I hope you don’t think me ignorant. If this is the case, I’ll try to add better footnotes.
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
Thank you TJ Johnson.
I am merely voicing some annoyance over an all too common tendency to try to read too much into conclusions resulting from having shoehorned issues into neat little categories. You see it in all aspects of life. Rather than making subjective judgments, people like to assign numbers to complex issues. Then it is just a matter of some simple math, and voila, a "scientific" unbiased result emerges and ā most importantly ā the evaluator cannot be held responsible. If a potential employer can have applicants fill out a questionnaire, then all he has to do is add up the pre configured point values and nobody can accuse him of letting looks, race, sex or any other inappropriate aspect influence his decision.
You obviously know what you are talking about and you do a great and thorough job. I know I occasionally come across a little more confrontational than is perhaps warranted. This is more a matter of enjoying a discussion than a display of animosity. However, while I can enjoy a debate for its own merits, anything I say will always be reflective of my true opinion. As such, I appreciate you taking the point of view presented seriously while being a good sport about it.
I'm sure I'm not the minority here...
…but I really appreciate the knowledge and the passion. And warmick, your post here brings up my single biggest pet peeve in football…QB rating! I detest it, I know none of us understand it. But to me, all I need to know about QB rating is that one can attain a perfect rating even if he throws incompletions. To me a “perfect game” should include no completions.
This just scratches the surface of why I DETEST that stat, but it’s the most emblematic of my feelings about the rating.
NCM, thanks for weighing in also
QB Rating. Good stuff. I plan on doing a piece in the next few weeks on it, breaking it apart. Doug has done some good work on it also. I don’t like how it weights everything equally. It certainly can’t value judge those occasions in which Orton doesn’t take a stupid sack and just throws the ball away.
Good good point. I think the correlation coefficient on QB to season wins is moderately strong, but, still, your point is well taken.
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
Thanks TJ!
I LOVE your column, and I am a big believer that stats don’t lie…most of the time. Since discovering MHR, I would take the staff’s breakdown on stuff like QB rating over anybody else. I can’t wait to have you explain it to me, and maybe I will finally understand it.
And you make my other point perfectly. I’d rather have KO throwing it away rather than taking a sack any day, stats be damned. Which is another reason I love the guy….
and I meant...
…a perfect game should include no INcompletions. A game with no completions can just be called “JaMarcus.” As in, “Derek Anderson NEARLY pulled off the JaMarcus tonight!”
LOL
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
Warmick, yes.
Your post actually makes me a better writer. I need to be pushed like this sometimes. It gets me to expound upon issues rather than just make generalizations. So the points you brought up are excellent and it’s a great discussion to have about TOP, because it’s on target.
You’ve really got me thinking about some multi-variable linear regression models that I can to sub-divide TOP now. This was just excellent because it gets me thinking about the gray zones. Moreover, it makes me want to dissect some individual games to demonstrate some of the stuff we are talking about.
Really, I can’t say enough about this. It’s making me think MHR can handle some more of the complexities that we are discussing. I hope to keep discussing all of these issues with you. Don’t worry about the confrontation. I can see how this develops after reading so many MSM articles on stats. Feel free to blast me anytime. And given the amount of satire and sarcasm in my own writing, the context makes sense.
Your point about the employer made me chuckle. I’ve been in those hiring committees before. You nailed that one.
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
Correlation does not equal cause and effect
by DCJ on Nov 18, 2009 7:51 PM MST via mobile up reply actions
As I was saying before I prematurely hit the the wrong button
People tend to read “correlation” as “cause and effect.” Sometimes there is a directionality to the correlation (temperature and the liquidity of my ice cream) and sometimes there is simply a correlation (the spurious yet fabled beer and diapers purchases).
In the case of ToP, the causative effects can be argued, but the predictive power of the correlation is good. That is, it doesn’t matter if ToP causes the win or vice versa, but rather it it allows one to accurately predict the outcome without seeing the actual outcome.
Non-directional correlates are usually used to predict things we cannot measure directly such as tomorrows weather. One of the major problems with using non-directional correlates with concrete measured systems like a game last Sunday is that they provide post hoc confimation that the game was lost, but do not add value by shedding light on what might be wrong.
That said, I do enjoy reading these forays into real statistical analysis. Thanks for a job well done TJ. If I may make one little request though — the separator line you use at the top of the column has a set width or something which causes it to be twice as long as the rest of the page on my mobile browser. Since the line apparently must fill the screen, the text collapses to half size whilst your article is on the front page. Could you possibly down-size the line, or make it autoadjust to the browser width?
Thanks!
DCJ
by DCJ on Nov 18, 2009 8:17 PM MST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
DCJ, thanks!!!! I think i can just eliminate the line for you. It only serves a tiny purpose anyway.
Yes, agreed, and great post. In a response to a previous post, I said, I should footnote all of my stat and correlation posts with the following:
1) Correlation does not equal causation :-)
You and warmick have got my juices burning for a piece on the elements of TOP, with multi- linear variables.
Thank you for the terminology as well. Most excellent. I hope you have been reading the correlation pieces we are doing as well.
DCJ, I am gong to rec your post now, I like it so much.
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
One key problem can be getting the direction of causality wrong
So it may be:
Winning game => high time of possession.
Instead of:
High time of possession => winning game.
Turnovers are clearer. Except for the “Hail Mary” or “faux punt” interceptions, giving the ball over to the other team is never good. Either you messed up your own scoring chance or gave them fat field position.
Talk about sloppy football.
How in the world do these 2 teams get up in the morning? They couldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag on 3rd down…..
OAK – 2 – 31:00 – 12.5% – 28.44
KC – 3 – 28:44 – 6.67% – 26.34
CLE – 2 – 28:28 – 31.25% – 22
Cleveland is better…..and they don’t score touchdowns. Key to beating the Faiders and Chefs, get them in a 3rd down situation.
Whoa whoa whoa.........
I thought the key to beating the Faiders was to put the ball in the hands of Jamarcus Russel and let him wing it into the arms of a defender 93 yards down the field?
This changes everything.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
by kentuckybronco on Nov 18, 2009 5:40 PM MST up reply actions
that would work too but...
then you have to run around the crane that the Cable guy uses to get Jamarcus on and off the field. Better to take the 2 1/2 hour time out to lift him off the field after the 3rd down miss and start at the faider 20 yard line.
Good point.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
by kentuckybronco on Nov 18, 2009 6:21 PM MST up reply actions
Looks like the Raiders are finally benching him.
Awww. I’m going to miss him.
Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.
by MrFNSunshine on Nov 18, 2009 6:32 PM MST up reply actions
For the Love
What in world are we gonna do now? Heyward-Bay may catch a pass now…..wait no he won’t.
Al does like the vertical game.
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."
Yeah, but the Raiders' game is inverse vertical
More commonly known as “digging a hole.”
excellent article
and discussion. additionally, i wonder the correlation with penalties(especially the major pass int. calls), and winning. holding calls and scoring pct., etc. interesting read. the importance of turnover ratio, and especially where they occurred, if points were involved,… doesn’t get enough merit, sometimes. special teams play, like our dismal return stats above(but 2 td’s) is more important, considering the way we are trying to win games this season.
the only stat that matters is wins and losses, of course. and right now, we have 6 and 3, respectively. the stats in this next game will matter more than the stats in the last one, i would say. but these all are very solid and fundamental areas being discussed here, and if you do certain things welll in a game, statistically, you have a very high chance of winning. thanks for the post, and safety blitz dawkins all day, please, mr. nolan. sacks are my 2nd favorite stat!
p.s. whoa, you got to love b-bawk. i’m actually afraid of what he might bring to the game sunday, and i’m on his side. check out the video clip from the home site today, and tell me what you think. or is he always like this?
taste my blitzkrieg!
2009-year of the defense
thanks dave, we have that information, will make sure to do some future articles around all of that
I am working on the turnover research now, but as you can imagine, it’s gonna take a bit of time.
thanks again for your thoughts on this
"Wait, let me explain something to you...I'm the Dude. So, that's what you call me. You know, that, or 'His Dudeness,' or 'Duder,' or 'El Duderino,' if you're not into the whole brevity thing."

by 



































