While some football fans and talking heads are slow to come around to challenging long-held cliches about football, one area that is gaining traction is how we look at fumbles.
It has been proven quite definitively over the past decade or so that while CAUSING fumbles is a skill, RECOVERING them is largely a random event. What this means in the long term is that teams who had bad fumble "luck" one season have a tendency to regress back to the mean the following season. More fumbles recovered can obviously go a long way towards an extra win or two in close games.
This article is about 10 days old at this point, but not sure if people knew this fact:
"The 49ers and Giants were the two unluckiest teams this year when it comes to fumbles. Here’s how to read the New York line: The Giants fumbled 21 times, and lost 14 of them; given the 46% fumble loss rate, that means New York lost 4.4 more fumbles than expected. The Giants opponents fumbled 24 times, but lost just 9 of them; this means that Giants opponents lost two fewer fumbles than expected. As a result, the Giants recovered 6.4 fewer fumbles than expected. There were 45 total fumbles in Giants games in 2014, and New York recovered just 16 of them, for a 35.6% rate."
What a kick in the nuts. Not only did we not recover our own fumbles, but we also had a hard time recovering the opponents' fumbles as well. The article further writes:
"New York and Dallas each fumbled 21 times, and each incredibly lost 14 of those fumbles. Giants fans can blame Eli Manning for just four of those fumbles, as Larry Donnell (4), Quintin Demps (2), Rashad Jennings, Preston Parker, Daniel Fells, and yes, even Odell Beckham, combined for the other ten... Yes, that’s safety Quintin Demps, who fumbled once on an interception return and once on a kickoff return.
Can our luck with fumbles turn around next year? The thing with probabilities is that no matter the odds, its not a guarantee until it hits 100%. However, with stats like the above, there's some reason to be hopeful.
2014 Fumble Recovery Data - (
New Window )
Bottom line, it's impossible to predict how an oblong inflated ball will bounce with 5-10 275lb beasts all going after it
Then of course he coughs up the ball on a handoff from Eli, and Pierre Woods falls right on it. That is the essence of fumble luck, but what it fails to account for is the fact that Bradshaw recovered the ball, and it tuns out the Giants won the game.
So fumble luck is just another stat for quants; Giants were losing the fumble war because they sucked, not the other way around. And they will likely get better, not because of "regression to the mean" but because those responsible for their sucktitude will not be on the field anymore.
Ah, another Spagnuolo comment, I see. All will be well. From a different perspective consider that in basketball, talent gets the deep rebounds. Know what I mean by that? It's just not desire and rebounding-machine drills. Similarly talent recovers fumbles. Fewell was stuck with many poor players. If most of these return in 15, the Giants defense will blow again. Poor players are poor players because a. They miss assignments b. Lose their individual match-ups & c. Commit penalties because they can't legally perform the task. You can add force & recover fumbles . Not that Fewell's defenses did not get their fair share of turnovers-they always did . It's just if LT uses the Claw to rip the ball from behind and guys like Mark Collins are after the ball, I like the Giants chances.
Guess who was best last year? Miami. Real powerhouse there.
Mighty Seattle? They were only 14th.
Jags and Texans are in the top 5.
Of course, there is a random element, and an element of luck. It would be completely random if all teams showed the same amount of hustle and determination to be near the ball - but they don't.
The Giants were not a hustling, get-to-the-ball team on either offense or defense last year IMO. The fumble recovery stats seem to support that observation.
You will never convince me - or Robbie - that being close to the ball does not increase your chances. When I coached I always told my players to do your job and then run to the ball. Don't let a fumble surprise you - expect one on every play - you will be there just a little quicker and that can make all the difference. In 10 years, we ALWAYS recovered more fumbles than our opponents and one year it was 80%. Ten consecutive years of excellent luck?
To be honest, there is a point in time when running to the ball isn't instinctive for players but as they progress through the various levels upward, it becomes more natural because they have heard it before so often. Same thing for basketball where I have coached a bit. Younger players will occasionally watch a ball go out of bounds.
But to piggyback off Semipro's comment, one anecdote doesn't disprove all the research that shows what I said in my OP - that FORCING fumbles is skill and RECOVERY is luck/random/whatever.
MIA, JAX and HOU were all better at recovering fumbles this year than SEA and NE. So I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree that recovering fumbles is something that is coachable at the NFL level.
the giants D had its head up its ass on almost every fumble last year. u dont pay attention, u dont recover
First, and most obvious, the recovery rate is 46%. Not 50%. So its near-random, but not random. So if its not random, there must be reasons, albeit small.
So now listen to the coaches, and see if what they are saying can be quantitated. It can't. So it fits into that albeit small but measurable difference, nicely, and the world is OK.
the giants D had its head up its ass on almost every fumble last year. u dont pay attention, u dont recover
So once again, did the Seattle defense have its head up its ass because according to that chart, their defense performed worse than the Giants at recovering opponent's fumbles? The same thing with Denver and a few other teams.
Coaches do emphasize this to varying degrees and with varying techniques, but no NFL coaching staff has been able to maintain a consistently better-than-average rate of fumble recovery over a statistically significant period.
First, and most obvious, the recovery rate is 46%. Not 50%. So its near-random, but not random. So if its not random, there must be reasons, albeit small.
So now listen to the coaches, and see if what they are saying can be quantitated. It can't. So it fits into that albeit small but measurable difference, nicely, and the world is OK.
Again, did you even read the article? The very first paragraph -
There are few statistics more random in all of sports than fumble recoveries. When a football is on the ground, it’s not the case that better teams are more likely to fall on the ball than bad teams: in the NFL, recovering fumbles is nearly all luck and little skill. This is a fact widely accepted by all statisticians, and I also ran a study which confirmed such intuition just last year.
Coaches do emphasize this to varying degrees and with varying techniques, but no NFL coaching staff has been able to maintain a consistently better-than-average rate of fumble recovery over a statistically significant period.
Perfectly said, thank you.
Watch Bradshaw's fumble recovery in SB42 and describe the relative amount of skill and luck involved.
And I read the article. No different than the others: lots of luck and little skill. If you think that means no skill, then you have the reading comprehension problem.
Players have to exploit every possible advantage to win; that small non-random component is key. Approximately 8% (46/50).
The direction of the bounce may be random, but let's just say there is a football sitting three feet from my grasp and three feet from JPP's grasp, does anyone really think I'll get the ball fifty percent of the time? Does anyone think I'll get the ball even once, and live to tell about it? ;-)
However, LUCK will always play a part and sometimes it is a large part. You can have 5 players around the ball and have it bounce directly into the hands of the one player from the other team who happens to be there.
The Giants did not seem to be alert and did not seem to swarm to the ball with the same aggression as some teams. Is it the players or the coaching? I don't know. There were several cases last year - Jennings failure to pick the ball up in the end zone being the most blatant.
In the end the point that we have an opportunity to improve is well taken. That would not be a likely possibility if we had recovered 70% last year. To say it is random. If you are around the ball and have average luck you will do better than a team who has fewer players around the ball with average luck.