Interesting stat - combined lead after the first quarter

Two things that jump out are:

1. We could be last on that list and still be one of the final eight teams playing after winning a playoff game.

2. We can average a two-point deficit going into the second quarter each week, and still win a bunch of games in a league where the margin of Victory is usually very slim.

Incredible reflection on our coaching staff.

In comment 16128037 cpgiants said:

Quote:

Incredible reflection on our coaching staff.

Indeed. The coaching last year was incredible.
At one point in the season the Giants 4th quarter point differential was far and away the best in the league.

...typical game would open with one or 2 first quarter scores, then fall asleep in the middle quarters and play in a panic to come from behind for the final 8 minutes. Was maddening.

Had no idea we were dead last.

Imagine if we could start fast.

As others have said, kudos to the coaching staff for making in game adjustments. Our coaches, led by Daboll, are fantastic

Game plan?

Sure would be nice to take an early lead.....

I would assume we were good?

for the Giants each week. Maybe the coaching staff needs to speed up those in-game adjustments a bit.

It was not hard to prepare for the Giants each week, but much harder to make those adjustments.

Across 17 games that’s a little over 2 point average per game on the negative side. One really bad first quarter can certainly skew the results.

What would be more meaningful IMO is how many games ahead, how many games behind after first quarter. That plus/minus would be interesting to see.

On a separate note - I think the Giants offense will surprise many this year; I’m expecting a big jump and a top-10 offense.

and % of opening kickoffs received vs. kicked.

The ends of the 1st and 3rd quarters are somewhat arbitrary markers anyway (because the only potential factor I can think of that might influence a team's urgency to score before the end of the 1st/3rd quarter is wind), so I don't think this stat tells us much at all, and without the possession data (frequency and aggregate total time), it seems almost entirely useless from a directional standpoint.

In comment 16128059 nygiantfan said:

Quote:

for the Giants each week. Maybe the coaching staff needs to speed up those in-game adjustments a bit.

Obviously you want to score points, but I think it goes back to Daboll's philosophy of using the early game to set up more guaranteed big plays later on versus just hoping for big plays and his philosophy of not taking yourself out of games early on by getting down too far that you can't come back. The latter should not be confused with Joe Judge's fear all turnovers offense. Daboll recognizes that there is a time and place for gambling.

In comment 16128037 cpgiants said:

Quote:

Incredible reflection on our coaching staff.

Perhaps better at adjusting than game planning for early success.

In comment 16128071 Mike in NY said:

Quote:

In comment 16128059 nygiantfan said: Quote: for the Giants each week. Maybe the coaching staff needs to speed up those in-game adjustments a bit. Obviously you want to score points, but I think it goes back to Daboll's philosophy of using the early game to set up more guaranteed big plays later on versus just hoping for big plays and his philosophy of not taking yourself out of games early on by getting down too far that you can't come back. The latter should not be confused with Joe Judge's fear all turnovers offense. Daboll recognizes that there is a time and place for gambling.

I may not be aware of all of Daboll's philosophies but I am fairly certain he would prefer to be higher on that chart.

Warren Sharp
@SharpFootball
·
18s
the Giants became the first team since 2016 to produce a winning record on the season despite trailing after the first quarter by at least 38 points total over the season

absolutely must start faster in 2023

they tried to come out passing more with little success and then went to the run game to lead the way. The 2nd WFT third drive was a reverse where they used the short passing game to lead the way after the poor run game put the team in the bad down/distance highlighting the deficiencies. The debate is how much was preparation versus execution and probably varied.

Coaches talk about preparation and execution not assumptions.

Let's see what happens this year with the added talent and hopefully improved OL play.

In comment 16128084 Heisenberg said:

Quote:

Warren Sharp @SharpFootball · 18s the Giants became the first team since 2016 to produce a winning record on the season despite trailing after the first quarter by at least 38 points total over the season absolutely must start faster in 2023

There are a number of reversion to the mean candidates out there. The Giants must XYZ in a bunch of areas.

the first half of the season or so, especially early in games. I remember thinking I wish we would pass more on 1st downs and we started to do that the second half of season. The arrival of Hodgins helped and maybe Daboll and Kafka became more confident in Jones or they knew they had to open things up in order to take the next step and compete in the playoffs.

I suspect things are going to be a lot different this year. We have weapons now and Daboll/Kafka know what Jones can do. No more training wheels.

In comment 16128080 nygiantfan said:

Quote:

In comment 16128071 Mike in NY said: Quote: In comment 16128059 nygiantfan said: Quote: for the Giants each week. Maybe the coaching staff needs to speed up those in-game adjustments a bit. Obviously you want to score points, but I think it goes back to Daboll's philosophy of using the early game to set up more guaranteed big plays later on versus just hoping for big plays and his philosophy of not taking yourself out of games early on by getting down too far that you can't come back. The latter should not be confused with Joe Judge's fear all turnovers offense. Daboll recognizes that there is a time and place for gambling. I may not be aware of all of Daboll's philosophies but I am fairly certain he would prefer to be higher on that chart.

Definitely he would like to be higher, but of the areas that need fixing this is probably lower on his priority list.

after the first 45 minutes is low on the priority list?

Daboll didn’t have much of a choice last season with the personnel we had especially in the first half of the season. It’s interesting to see the stats but didn’t we all know this watching the games? As long as we weren’t down big at the half we were in it.

We were ahead at the end of the first quarter 5x
We were behind at the end of the first quarter 10x
We were tied at the end of the first quarter 2x

Expect that to trend up this year with more offensive firepower and imprvements on D.

in the bottom 10 on that stat. It isn't very meaningful.

One reason is that it is a mean reported without the standard deviation or other measure of variation. I don't have time to calculate the variance right now, but just going by the ahead/ behind numbers someone posted (behind 10 games out of 17) the variation is likely to be comparable to the 2 point deficit.

In comment 16128064 gary_from_chester said:

Quote:

Across 17 games that’s a little over 2 point average per game on the negative side. One really bad first quarter can certainly skew the results. What would be more meaningful IMO is how many games ahead, how many games behind after first quarter. That plus/minus would be interesting to see.

+1

As others note, too many factors at the start of the game including a philosophical one: fast start vs. rope-a-dope / feel out. Some high scoring teams are buried in the list (Philly, Buf, Jax).

In the Giants case, it's both philosophical and a function of the offense. Under this regime we're a second half team -- it's the first time in decades in game adjustments are a strength.

The Giants will probably be middle of the pack this season. Unless our O is so good that we change our philosophy to play from ahead.

In comment 16128239 Milton said:

Quote:

In comment 16128064 gary_from_chester said: Quote: Across 17 games that’s a little over 2 point average per game on the negative side. One really bad first quarter can certainly skew the results. What would be more meaningful IMO is how many games ahead, how many games behind after first quarter. That plus/minus would be interesting to see. +1

Tally up the record of the top 5-7 teams on that list, then do the same with the bottom 5-7 teams on that list.

Then tell me that stat doesn't matter.

Trailed the Titans 0-7 after Q1 (-7)
Led the Panthers 6-0 after Q1 (-1)
Trailed the Cowboys 0-3 after Q1 (-4)
Led the Bears 7-6 after Q1 (-3)

So had a -3 differential after 4 games and had 3 wins. The biggest deficit was 7 points in Week 1.

I don't think this stat is all that meaningful, as the poster above indicated.

In comment 16128504 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

In comment 16128239 Milton said: Quote: In comment 16128064 gary_from_chester said: Quote: Across 17 games that’s a little over 2 point average per game on the negative side. One really bad first quarter can certainly skew the results. What would be more meaningful IMO is how many games ahead, how many games behind after first quarter. That plus/minus would be interesting to see. +1 Tally up the record of the top 5-7 teams on that list, then do the same with the bottom 5-7 teams on that list. Then tell me that stat doesn't matter.

Correlation does not equal causation. Coincidences exist. Good teams are likely to have a lead at the end of any quarter. They're also likely to have a lead at the end of any arbitrarily-chosen minute of the game. That does not make "scoring margin at the end of the 1st quarter" a valuable predictor of anything.

There is no way around the fact that "1st quarter" is an arbitrary distinction. The end of the 1st (and 3rd) quarter(s) has no effect on a possession in progress, and therefore lacks any predictive extrapolation. What's the scoring margin for teams in the first few minutes of the 2nd quarter, when a drive that began in the final few minutes of the 1st quarter might reach completion? Those drives that don't result in points until they end in the beginning of the 2nd quarter look exactly the same as a 1st quarter punt or turnover. What's the 1st quarter scoring rate as percentage of their possessions?

If a team defers on the opening kickoff, they may play two possessions on defense in the first quarter, but only one on offense - they could get outscored in the first quarter of a game that is on its way to becoming a shootout, but it wouldn't mean anything because no team has any reason to treat the end of the 1st (or 3rd) quarter as a meaningful point in time (except when wind might motivate a coach to play differently with the wind at their back).

There are a lot of scenarios that can be put forth that show the same thing: because the 1st (and 3rd) quarter do not result in any change of possession or interrupt a drive (except for flipping sides of the field, and a clock stoppage and TV timeout), it is a meaningless distinction, and therefore, a meaningless stat.

In comment 16128504 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

In comment 16128239 Milton said: Quote: In comment 16128064 gary_from_chester said: Quote: Across 17 games that’s a little over 2 point average per game on the negative side. One really bad first quarter can certainly skew the results. What would be more meaningful IMO is how many games ahead, how many games behind after first quarter. That plus/minus would be interesting to see. +1 Tally up the record of the top 5-7 teams on that list, then do the same with the bottom 5-7 teams on that list. Then tell me that stat doesn't matter.

Agree with the points Gatorade made, but on a very simple level all you have said is that winning teams score more points. No matter how you divide up the point differential (by quarter/half/6th minute of the third quarter, etc.) over a 17 game season better teams will have a better differential. What is surprising about the NYG (and the Vikings) is that they have a bad differential and a good record. That pretty clearly comes from winning a lot of very close games. the point differential is an interesting piece of information. The fact that we are looking at it at the end of the first quarter is not interesting.

Lets repeat that the Giants are the first team since 2016 to overcome a first Q differential like that and make the playoffs. If the Giants repeat that performance, it seems unlikely they make the playoffs again.

More uninteresting stats: Here's the net plus or minus heading into the 4th quarter


Warren Sharp
@SharpFootball
lead entering the 4th quarter across all games:

+150: BUF*
+147: PHI*
+128: SF*
+126: KC*
+77: BAL*
+66: CIN*
+64: DAL*
+49: JAX*
+32: MIA*
+12: NE
+11: LAC*
+9: NO
-4: TEN
-7: DET*
-13: CAR
-14: GB
-16: SEA*
-16: LV
-21: CLE
-24: LAR
-28: WAS
-31: NYG*
-44: TB
-47: PIT*
-48: ATL
-53: DEN
-68: NYJ
-75: IND
-78: HOU
-87: MIN*
-95: CHI
-102: ARI

* = team had a winning record in 2022

(margin thru 3 quarters in all regular season games combined)

In comment 16128644 Heisenberg said:

Quote:

Lets repeat that the Giants are the first team since 2016 to overcome a first Q differential like that and make the playoffs. If the Giants repeat that performance, it seems unlikely they make the playoffs again. More uninteresting stats: Here's the net plus or minus heading into the 4th quarter Warren Sharp @SharpFootball lead entering the 4th quarter across all games: +150: BUF* +147: PHI* +128: SF* +126: KC* +77: BAL* +66: CIN* +64: DAL* +49: JAX* +32: MIA* +12: NE +11: LAC* +9: NO -4: TEN -7: DET* -13: CAR -14: GB -16: SEA* -16: LV -21: CLE -24: LAR -28: WAS -31: NYG* -44: TB -47: PIT* -48: ATL -53: DEN -68: NYJ -75: IND -78: HOU -87: MIN* -95: CHI -102: ARI * = team had a winning record in 2022 (margin thru 3 quarters in all regular season games combined)

It's not uninteresting, it's just that it's purely arbitrary.

Pick any minute of the game, and teams with a high winning percentage overall will also have a high average scoring margin at that particular minute. And whatever minute you choose will be arbitrary, and tell you very little that you couldn't already get by looking at the W/L/T record and overall points differential.

There is nothing magical about the end of the 1st quarter or the end of the 3rd quarter, or whatever arbitrary moment you choose. The better your team is, the more likely it is that your team will have the lead at any given moment in the game. That doesn't mean that comebacks don't happen or that teams don't sometimes win close (but more frequently) and lose by larger margins (but less frequently) - those are not predictive scenarios.

Yes, it is unlikely that the Giants (and Vikings, for that matter) will repeat their W/L record while maintaining a scoring margin that is incongruent with that record. This is not news, nor is it insightful. Expected W/L (based on scoring margin) has been a thing for a long time. Slicing that down to an arbitrary moment in the game does nothing to add more/new insights.

In comment 16128504 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

Tally up the record of the top 5-7 teams on that list, then do the same with the bottom 5-7 teams on that list. Then tell me that stat doesn't matter.

I tallied up the records of the teams as you suggested and it confirmed the worthlessness of that stat compared to the records of teams who had the largest point differential at the end of the game.
p.s.--Philadelphia had the best record in football and didn't crack your top 5-7 list. The Giants finished at the bottom of the list and finished with a winning record. The list is stupid and worthless.

In comment 16128037 cpgiants said:

Quote:

Incredible reflection on our coaching staff.

The statistic doesn't say anything about whether or not the Giants won games in which they were behind after a quarter. If the Giants lost a game in which they trailed 63-0 after the first quarter and went on to lose 70-0, how would that have affected the meaningfulness of the stat if they averaged being behind by two points over 17 games?

In comment 16128655 Gatorade Dunk said:

Quote:

In comment 16128644 Heisenberg said: Quote: Lets repeat that the Giants are the first team since 2016 to overcome a first Q differential like that and make the playoffs. If the Giants repeat that performance, it seems unlikely they make the playoffs again. More uninteresting stats: Here's the net plus or minus heading into the 4th quarter Warren Sharp @SharpFootball lead entering the 4th quarter across all games: +150: BUF* +147: PHI* +128: SF* +126: KC* +77: BAL* +66: CIN* +64: DAL* +49: JAX* +32: MIA* +12: NE +11: LAC* +9: NO -4: TEN -7: DET* -13: CAR -14: GB -16: SEA* -16: LV -21: CLE -24: LAR -28: WAS -31: NYG* -44: TB -47: PIT* -48: ATL -53: DEN -68: NYJ -75: IND -78: HOU -87: MIN* -95: CHI -102: ARI * = team had a winning record in 2022 (margin thru 3 quarters in all regular season games combined) It's not uninteresting, it's just that it's purely arbitrary. Pick any minute of the game, and teams with a high winning percentage overall will also have a high average scoring margin at that particular minute. And whatever minute you choose will be arbitrary, and tell you very little that you couldn't already get by looking at the W/L/T record and overall points differential. There is nothing magical about the end of the 1st quarter or the end of the 3rd quarter, or whatever arbitrary moment you choose. The better your team is, the more likely it is that your team will have the lead at any given moment in the game. That doesn't mean that comebacks don't happen or that teams don't sometimes win close (but more frequently) and lose by larger margins (but less frequently) - those are not predictive scenarios. Yes, it is unlikely that the Giants (and Vikings, for that matter) will repeat their W/L record while maintaining a scoring margin that is incongruent with that record. This is not news, nor is it insightful. Expected W/L (based on scoring margin) has been a thing for a long time. Slicing that down to an arbitrary moment in the game does nothing to add more/new insights.

Games only go for 60 minutes and the effect of the passage of time on the probability of the outcome is not exactly arbitrary. You can see that in which teams had winning records and which didn't

In comment 16128701 Heisenberg said:

Quote:

In comment 16128655 Gatorade Dunk said: Quote: In comment 16128644 Heisenberg said: Quote: Lets repeat that the Giants are the first team since 2016 to overcome a first Q differential like that and make the playoffs. If the Giants repeat that performance, it seems unlikely they make the playoffs again. More uninteresting stats: Here's the net plus or minus heading into the 4th quarter Warren Sharp @SharpFootball lead entering the 4th quarter across all games: +150: BUF* +147: PHI* +128: SF* +126: KC* +77: BAL* +66: CIN* +64: DAL* +49: JAX* +32: MIA* +12: NE +11: LAC* +9: NO -4: TEN -7: DET* -13: CAR -14: GB -16: SEA* -16: LV -21: CLE -24: LAR -28: WAS -31: NYG* -44: TB -47: PIT* -48: ATL -53: DEN -68: NYJ -75: IND -78: HOU -87: MIN* -95: CHI -102: ARI * = team had a winning record in 2022 (margin thru 3 quarters in all regular season games combined) It's not uninteresting, it's just that it's purely arbitrary. Pick any minute of the game, and teams with a high winning percentage overall will also have a high average scoring margin at that particular minute. And whatever minute you choose will be arbitrary, and tell you very little that you couldn't already get by looking at the W/L/T record and overall points differential. There is nothing magical about the end of the 1st quarter or the end of the 3rd quarter, or whatever arbitrary moment you choose. The better your team is, the more likely it is that your team will have the lead at any given moment in the game. That doesn't mean that comebacks don't happen or that teams don't sometimes win close (but more frequently) and lose by larger margins (but less frequently) - those are not predictive scenarios. Yes, it is unlikely that the Giants (and Vikings, for that matter) will repeat their W/L record while maintaining a scoring margin that is incongruent with that record. This is not news, nor is it insightful. Expected W/L (based on scoring margin) has been a thing for a long time. Slicing that down to an arbitrary moment in the game does nothing to add more/new insights. Games only go for 60 minutes and the effect of the passage of time on the probability of the outcome is not exactly arbitrary. You can see that in which teams had winning records and which didn't

Yes, the probability of the winner of the game being the team who currently has the lead does indeed increase the closer you get to the end of the game.

If you needed a new statistic to tell you this, maybe the stat in your OP is right up your alley. Slicing the data at any arbitrary interval does nothing other than identifying outliers.

We already know that the team who wins the game will be the one who scores more points. We also already know that the opportunity to score more new points decreases as a function of the game clock. There is nothing in your OP (or subsequent posts) that gives us something new.

The standings alone tell us which teams were leading after the final minute of play (typically the 60th minute, but for overtime results). Looking at that data after the 59th minute will be mostly similar, with slight variation if any teams had last-minute victories. Looking at the data after the 58th minute will be largely identical to the 59th minute data because there's a bias toward not leaving time on the clock when a team is actively trying to score at the end of the game. And then, with each minute that you move the interval data farther from the final score, the results become less and less meaningful because being the best team at having the lead after 54 minutes doesn't mean anything. And even more so, being the best (or worst) team at having the lead after 15 minutes is irrelevant.

You have to score more points than your opponent to win the game. So you should expect that the teams that have the best W/L records in general are also the teams most likely to outscore their opponents, on average, at whatever arbitrary interval you choose.

but you have to understand the factors of why this played out the way it did. It's pretty clear but you have to look a little deeper into other stats and factors.

Quote:

You have to score more points than your opponent to win the game. So you should expect that the teams that have the best W/L records in general are also the teams most likely to outscore their opponents, on average, at whatever arbitrary interval you choose.

This that you wrote is precisely what I thought was interesting. This is exactly the expectation. That the Giants and Vikings had winning records despite not scoring their opponents on average was interesting to me. It doesn't summarize the performance of a team of course, because the context is important and missing. But I thought the outliers, as you mentioned, were interesting.

In comment 16128721 Heisenberg said:

Quote:

Quote: You have to score more points than your opponent to win the game. So you should expect that the teams that have the best W/L records in general are also the teams most likely to outscore their opponents, on average, at whatever arbitrary interval you choose. This that you wrote is precisely what I thought was interesting. This is exactly the expectation. That the Giants and Vikings had winning records despite not scoring their opponents on average was interesting to me. It doesn't summarize the performance of a team of course, because the context is important and missing. But I thought the outliers, as you mentioned, were interesting.

I think you're correct here, thanks for that distinction - I agree with you there. And I did note that it wasn't uninteresting, just not predictive in any way besides the obvious.

And it does tell us that even if the Giants possess some rare ability to win games without regularly playing from ahead, we should still want them to take the lead and keep it rather than rely on comeback attempts because the greatest predictor of ending the game with the lead is having (and holding) the lead during the game.

A team's won-loss record doesn't care whether you lost 70-0 or 7-6 and yet the total points margin after the first quarter cares very much. It doesn't even show that the Giants were good at coming back from behind. The opposite could actually be true under the statistic's parameters. The use of total points rather than just stating the number of games in which the Giants were leading after a quarter vs how many in which they were trailing (or at the very least, give us the median difference in scoring after a quarter) gives away the dishonesty of the statistician. And even then, left out of the equation is the possibility that the first quarter ended with one of the team's first and goal at the one yard line.

This an excellent example of there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

In comment 16128726 Gatorade Dunk said:

Quote:

And it does tell us that even if the Giants possess some rare ability to win games without regularly playing from ahead

But it doesn't even tell us that. Technically speaking, the Giants could've been leading after the first quarter in 16 of 17 games and still finished last in total points margin after one quarter. Picture a team that is leading 7-6 in 16 of 17 games, but trailed 54-0 after a quarter in the game that their starter QB missed. All it takes is one outlier to blow it up.

worst in the league in generating big plays. They were near the highest in rushing attempts and Jones had the highest number of runs on third downs that turned into first downs.

This is just on the offensive side but when they scored it was often in a very time consuming fashion. On the D side they did a lot of bend don't break and were amongst the league leaders in yards allowed and attempts on the ground which is another time consuming process. This is why you saw the lower scoring outcomes in the first 9 games. Hard to create big margins in these games.

If they get more big plays that result in scores they will take up less time. If the D does its part they will give the ball back to them faster. That combo leads to bigger margins whatever QTR you look at.