http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8242889/miami-paper-status-surprise-you Very interesting. It talks about the historic inability to recover an inordinate amount of fumbles caused by our defense. Talks about the schedules, talks about how we matched up with some of the best teams, and talks about how in most of our losses we were usually beating the hell out of the teams we were playing yet nosedived at the end of the game. There's a lot of advanced metrics in there that seem to be pretty indicative of what happened last year.. The writer thinks we're better than a lot of folks think, and that we can make the playoffs if we allow Moore to continue his progression until Tannehill is ready..
I was just about to post a thread on this. I had no idea that we only recovered ONE FUMBLE on defense last year. That is absolutely mind blowing. This guy also puts forth a lot of support for Moore. Not sure I agree with him, but I guess if you were to go purely off of numbers he may have a point.
Any coincidence Philbin has Miami practicing fumble recoveries every practice? I don't think so either.
Excellent analysis. You might as well have yelled "FART"!!! Perhaps you could enlighten us with WHY you believe this.
first time I've ever read his work, I thought it was a pretty good article, but I'm not an expert in advanced metrics and stats, or should I say lamen metrics and stats?
the only thing Moore will lead Miami in is fumbled snaps. I wonder if he watched ANY Dolphins games last year?
..... but if it were a fart he wouldn't have said anything at all. He would've quietly walked in, stood behind Finascious D, and silently let'er rip..... then in a disguised FinD voice call over the hottest chick around and then turn and make his escape.
lucky girl..... I mean total backfire, right. Wait, not sure if you're indirectly thanking 126 here or blaming him.
Nothing to "believe". I am stating an opinion based on fact. All win% projections have to be based on a statistical analysis that measures efficiency in all areas across the board and then compare them historically. You create a composite of stats that matter and then use them to index ALL teams, as to compare them with each other. This hack used a tiny sample size and used rudimentary statistics and basically said "They are due". That is a stupid and ignorant use of statistics and an insult to anybody that has actually used advanced metrics. Bill Barnwell is a notorious stat hack.
Regardless of how much Sec doesn't respect the writer, there are valid points to the article that demonstrate losses that if we can just be average in, could produce different results..
I didn't see that at all. Only stats he used were Pythagorean wins and fumbles recovered. I don't think those are necessarily rudimentary in the context he used them.
The theorem can be generalized in various ways, higher-dimensional spaces, to spaces that are not Evelidean, to objects that are not right triangles and indeed, to objects that are not triangles at all, but n-dimensional solids. In this hypothisis the right sided triangle being Vonte Davis on the extended side, the defence over the flat and Matt Moore oposeing the extended side. So in theory Vonte needs to step up in game one not ten. Moore needs to start all games. The D just remains the same overall therefore getting more fumble recoveries because they are due. This right sided triangle will balance out as we all watch the Dolphins go to the Super Bowl. I'm in. Way to much for a phone.
of course they are. It is possible for a team to not recover a fumble for the next 400 years. Thus why his "they are due" argument is bull****.
Yes, it is possible. Extremely unlikely, when you consider that recovering a fumble is a 50-50 proposition. And he never said they were "due", he just pointed out that the team had a lot of bad luck. That just points to them being better than their record. It doesn't mean they are due for anything, just that they played better than a 6-win team.
Well, that is a stunning ratio of loss/recovery. I remember a period though in the Wanny era where NO ONE missed a FG against us for some remarkable # of games. Seems like it was more than a season's worth of games. 50+ yarders were automatic; kickers had career records.
we'll have a much clearer picture in the post season games. wouldn't sell anyone short. I fully suspect Moore will come into his own, as he did last year, @ game-time. I also think if we are not above 500 by game five Tannehill will be under center regardless who gets the start initially.
Historically, I've found that interceptions and and fumble recoveries tend to fluctuate from year to year. It's rare that a team stays high or low in either category for multiple seasons. IMO odds are good that Miami at least returns to the mean there. I thought his conclusions about Davis and Moore were leaps.
Fumble recoveries have been proven to be random luck. You can't be good at recovering a fumble. Causing fumbles/interceptions however is a skill. It does have fluctuation though, moreso than offense, as generally offensive performance will be a lot more consistent than defensive performance.
The actual defensive TO recovered numbers tend to fluctuate year to year regardless of how much teams practice them. It's generally a good bet that a team that was on one extreme or the other one year in terms of getting TOs will at least return to the mean the next season.
I don't entirely agree about recovering fumbles being ALL luck. Where the ball bounces is luck, but securing the ball once it gets to you has some skill or least a proper thought process (like falling on it instead of running, covering it with your body, etc)
