Right upfront, this isn't anywhere near a statistically significant amount of data, just interesting trends. I'll pull more info together if this proves to be interesting.
I pulled the 14 teams slated to make the playoffs as of week 11 (meaning this doesn't include the Bills/Pats game), and compared them against the league averages.
This data set includes 106 wins, and 49 losses. Keep in mind some of those wins and losses came in the same game, when these teams played each other.
it shouldn't be a suprise... when teams are winning they run the ball, when they are loosing, they throw the ball. I would suspect turnover margin would be a more significant stat to compare
Quote:
The numbers are much lower than I would have guessed, and Average and Winning are really close. Hmm.
it shouldn't be a suprise... when teams are winning they run the ball, when they are loosing, they throw the ball. I would suspect turnover margin would be a more significant stat to compare
That's not what this chart says. It says winning teams throw more effectively. That's all one could conclude from this chart.
Yes. I'd like to peek at big plays 30+ yard touchdowns and redzone percentage.
It's always been my suspicion that winning teams just make more big plays and score in the red zone.
I've started to put together per game tendencies and win vs. loss tendencies for the good teams, I'll post those next.
Because the data set is so small, it's no surprise the numbers are close. And remember, those 14 teams are included in that league average too.
Dallas San Fran. Dallas Season ave. 32 pts/game. 27.7c/125y/ 4.6p/c.
Playoff game. SF 23 Dallas 17
Dallas 21c 77y 3.7c
San Fran 38c 169y 4.4c
Dak 24/44 254y 5.9 ypa 53% 1 TD 1 Int.
So when you here things like coaches say we have to "win the lines", "balance", "be the more Physical team" its not coach speak or something that people on T.V. say to sound like they get it. Its because its what tends to show up come playoff time. It is really hard to get around this on the offensive side UNLESS your offensive team has some combo of the right QB/skill group/OL to overcome it if you lose this battle. Upper tier D with those impact fronts which tends to happen in the playoffs aren't so nice that time of year. This impacted Dallas as the numbers show. Way down from their season rushing efforts and they felt the consequence.
Follow San Fran to when they get bounced. High rushing carries against Green Bay which they won. Then they go for 20 carries and lose to Cincy. These stories played out with Tenn. in the AFC if you look closely at Henry's numbers. Tannenhill 3 ints against Cincy who did the same to San Fran bottling up the run. The significance? It forces good QB's to have to win from the pocket and this does not have a great history of success. Which is why so many teams always probably would like a better QB. We all realize this is not very practical which is why smart teams build better on the OL.
Look at the two Giant SB box scores and see the rush carry advantage they had (which was critical) against the highest scoring team in the league both times. Our fronts sure benefitted from creating those more challenging down/distance situations. Just like the examples above.
Last years SB. Cincy had a plus two turnover ration. Hard to lose games with that advantage. Yet they did.
Cincy 21 carries 79 4.0
Rams 23 carries 49 1.9
Here was the big one I saw. Rams had 7 seven sacks. Think Cincy wins that game if they were at the league ave. carry wise or higher? Well YPA is very important (look at Dallas above) as this greatly impacts down/distance. So Cincy didn't run enough with success. Was this a HC decision? What it did was put Cincy right where the Rams had a huge advantage (facing their front) and they felt the consequence. If they did what our Giants did in their SB's where the Giants had a plus 10 rushing carry advantage perhaps they pull it off as well. Or maybe Cincy's QB was not on the Eli's talent level. Those real QB's seem to understand and deliver when it really matters.
It's exceptionally difficult to apply statistical analysis or analytics to what is the ultimate goal. LOS and other factors comes calling at some point for just about everybody in that playoff journey. Rare to see teams get around this. If someone can data there way out of this fact I'd welcome seeing that wisdom.
Bottom line seems to be you better be good at both run/pass and the matchup dictates on any given Sunday imv and how much balance you will need between the two. Exceptionally hard to get around this. This is not even factoring in the other side of the ball.
Follow the the playoffs and SB's four last decades game by game and this seems to continuously come up.
when looking at the games good teams win -- they meet or exceed the league average pass yards and rush yards at the same clip -- 60% of the time.
Years after year the best correlation to winning is TO difference.
Of the teams slated to make the playoffs I looked at, the only team with a negative turnover margin is KC at -3.
Quote:
I would suspect turnover margin would be a more significant stat to compare
Years after year the best correlation to winning is TO difference.
Of the teams slated to make the playoffs I looked at, the only team with a negative turnover margin is KC at -3.
I pointed this out in last years SB with Cincy having a plus two advantage and if they had run the ball at the charts average or better above I like its chances to pull that game off. Stratford kept getting the ball back on top of all the Ram sacks mentioned which impacted other things as well (field position).
Wanted to do something and being able to are two totally different things. This game has a funny way of almost always finding its roots back at those scrimmage lines. Those teams that can run well and defend the run certainly have great value when needed most.
I didn't pull down the defensive stats. But for the YTD playoff teams, one stat where they outperform the league average is NY/A -- 6.5 to 6.2.
Total guess, but if there is a stat that correlates with winning, that would be my guess.
The top 14 teams make up nearly half of the entire data pool by themsleves.
I think the results might show more instructive trends if you focused on maybe the top 7 teams versus the bottom 7 teams, both against league average.
If only they'd hit these numbers, they would have ....
That's not how this really works.
The top 14 teams make up nearly half of the entire data pool by themsleves.
I think the results might show more instructive trends if you focused on maybe the top 7 teams versus the bottom 7 teams, both against league average.
Yup, at the end of the year, if I have time I'll do just that.
And like I pointed out, the real weakness in an analysis like this is the overlap in data. The good teams probably pull league average numbers up.
I didn't pull down the defensive stats. But for the YTD playoff teams, one stat where they outperform the league average is NY/A -- 6.5 to 6.2.
Total guess, but if there is a stat that correlates with winning, that would be my guess.
Thanks.
If only they'd hit these numbers, they would have ....
That's not how this really works.
You are aware that there are about 3-4 posters who chime in on this and that would include you. I'm sure you are smart enough to understand this.....you have told me many times. I believe googs and NYgolfer who were very much alike (which I pointed out) haven't chimed in. I don't really care if more did in hostile fashion but the reality is I think more people share similar thoughts to offensive football than you think. Without a upper tier QB, WR group and functional PB OL you will not do much in this league without a outstanding run game that facilitates the pass game. Lots understand this very basic concept. Pass/run ratios are dictated by talent and game by game. Playoffs/SB's many more times than not will show you need to be good at both and those ratios may adjust if you plan on getting a W.
Dallas San Fran. Dallas Season ave. 32 pts/game. 27.7c/125y/ 4.6p/c.
Playoff game. SF 23 Dallas 17
Dallas 21c 77y 3.7c
San Fran 38c 169y 4.4c
Dak 24/44 254y 5.9 ypa 53% 1 TD 1 Int.
So when you here things like coaches say we have to "win the lines", "balance", "be the more Physical team" its not coach speak or something that people on T.V. say to sound like they get it. Its because its what tends to show up come playoff time. It is really hard to get around this on the offensive side UNLESS your offensive team has some combo of the right QB/skill group/OL to overcome it if you lose this battle. Upper tier D with those impact fronts which tends to happen in the playoffs aren't so nice that time of year. This impacted Dallas as the numbers show. Way down from their season rushing efforts and they felt the consequence.
Follow San Fran to when they get bounced. High rushing carries against Green Bay which they won. Then they go for 20 carries and lose to Cincy. These stories played out with Tenn. in the AFC if you look closely at Henry's numbers. Tannenhill 3 ints against Cincy who did the same to San Fran bottling up the run. The significance? It forces good QB's to have to win from the pocket and this does not have a great history of success. Which is why so many teams always probably would like a better QB. We all realize this is not very practical which is why smart teams build better on the OL.
Look at the two Giant SB box scores and see the rush carry advantage they had (which was critical) against the highest scoring team in the league both times. Our fronts sure benefitted from creating those more challenging down/distance situations. Just like the examples above.
Last years SB. Cincy had a plus two turnover ration. Hard to lose games with that advantage. Yet they did.
Cincy 21 carries 79 4.0
Rams 23 carries 49 1.9
Here was the big one I saw. Rams had 7 seven sacks. Think Cincy wins that game if they were at the league ave. carry wise or higher? Well YPA is very important (look at Dallas above) as this greatly impacts down/distance. So Cincy didn't run enough with success. Was this a HC decision? What it did was put Cincy right where the Rams had a huge advantage (facing their front) and they felt the consequence. If they did what our Giants did in their SB's where the Giants had a plus 10 rushing carry advantage perhaps they pull it off as well. Or maybe Cincy's QB was not on the Eli's talent level. Those real QB's seem to understand and deliver when it really matters.
It's exceptionally difficult to apply statistical analysis or analytics to what is the ultimate goal. LOS and other factors comes calling at some point for just about everybody in that playoff journey. Rare to see teams get around this. If someone can data there way out of this fact I'd welcome seeing that wisdom.
Bottom line seems to be you better be good at both run/pass and the matchup dictates on any given Sunday imv and how much balance you will need between the two. Exceptionally hard to get around this. This is not even factoring in the other side of the ball.
Follow the the playoffs and SB's four last decades game by game and this seems to continuously come up.
"Just tracking one team"
You genuinely have no understanding of aggregate data and should probably either brush up on it or stay off data-focused threads to avoid continually pulling your own pants down in front of everyone.
But good luck with your analytics and applying them to a sport playing out in real time where multiple variables can change play by play even factoring out talent you are working with.
If I see posters who make good arguments I will acknowledge as I have many times with many posters(against my own views). Unfortunately for me I don't see you as one of those. Good luck though.
But good luck with your analytics and applying them to a sport playing out in real time where multiple variables can change play by play even factoring out talent you are working with.
If I see posters who make good arguments I will acknowledge as I have many times with many posters(against my own views). Unfortunately for me I don't see you as one of those. Good luck though.
You aren't intelligent enough for your opinion on my intelligence to matter.
Quote:
I'm sure you're a intelligent guy for some. I didn't include you in the "3-4 posters" but I am sure you are smart enough to know you were in that group. I chose not to name you as I don't like interacting with you as I see you have run ins with a lot of posters.
But good luck with your analytics and applying them to a sport playing out in real time where multiple variables can change play by play even factoring out talent you are working with.
If I see posters who make good arguments I will acknowledge as I have many times with many posters(against my own views). Unfortunately for me I don't see you as one of those. Good luck though.
You aren't intelligent enough for your opinion on my intelligence to matter.
Maybe or maybe not. That is a determination left up to each individual to decide. Just like determining good and bad posters. I may be smart enough to guess that for myself but I would not be arrogant enough to determine that for others. But hey I guess coming up in a merit system helps with that. I'm sure you understand those environments.